Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

3. Collector & District Magistrate, Kandhamal At/P.O.: Phulbani District: Kandhamal.

4. Tahasildar Chakapad Tahasil, At/P.O.: Chakapada District: Kandhamal.

5. Principal Accountant General (A & E), Odisha AG Square, Bhubaneswar ... Opposite parties.

Counsel appeared for the parties:

For the Petitioners : M/s. Krishna Chandra Sahu, Sudarshan Pradhan, D.K. Mahalik, Ajaya Kumar Samal, Monalisa Tripathy, Advocates For the Opposite parties : Mr. Arnav Behera, Additional Standing Counsel P R E S E N T:

2.5. Laying challenge against the said Order of acquittal, the Vigilance Authority approached this Court by filing CrlLP No.40 of 2012, which was dismissed vide Order dated 11.12.2018.

2.6. After finalisation of said vigilance case, the Collector, Kandhamal-opposite party No.3 being approached for withdrawal of Order of dismissal, he passed Order on 21.08.2013 with the following observation:

"*** Whereas the applicant filed O.A. No.1182/2001 challenging the continuance of Departmental Proceeding drawn up against him. Hon‟ble Odisha Administrative Tribunal, Bhubaneswar in Order No.2 dated 14.08.2001 directed that let the interim Order to continue till 30.09.2001. But the said Order was received in the Office of the Collector, Kandhamal on 21.09.2001 and finally Order No.7 dated 07.12.2001 the Hon‟ble Odisha Administrative Tribunal white disposing of the case, directive was issued to the effect that, the final disposal of the Disciplinary Proceeding shall be held up till disposal of the criminal case in the Court of the Special Judge (Vigilance)-cum-Additional District & Sessions Judge, Berhampur. By the time of copy of the Order dated 05.09.2001 was received, i.e., on 21.09.2001, the Departmental Proceeding bearing No 4312 dated 13.11.2000 initiated against the applicant had already been finalized and disposed of. Accordingly, the applicant was dismissed from service with immediate effect vide Order No. 3643, dated 12.09.2001.

With these Orders the O.A. is disposed of."

2.9. Pursuant to the aforesaid direction of the learned Odisha Administrative Tribunal contained in Order dated 13.10.2015, the Disciplinary Authority-cum-Collector, Kandhamal passed the following Order dated 15.02.2016:

"*** Whereas, in the re-instatement Order the nature of period of suspension was not spelled out, Hon‟ble Odisha Administrative Tribunal, Bhubaneswar in O.A. No.1066 of 2014 vide Order No.6 dated 13.10.2015 directed the respondent No.2 that „Therefore the respondent No.2 is directed that this particular enquiry be completed within a period of four months from the date of receipt of a copy of this Order and subsequent thereto the treatment of the period regarding suspension be decided. In case the disciplinary proceeding is not completed within four months, then the same would be deemed to have been dropped. Further, it is directed that the financial as well as the consequential service benefits may be given to the applicant.‟ After careful perusal of the charges framed against the D.O., enquiry report dated 30.06.2001 of I.O. wherein the I.O. suggested that the period of suspension to be treated as such and all other relevant documents incidental to the proceeding, the Disciplinary Authority and Collector, Kandhamal has been pleased to Order as follows:

4.1. The Disciplinary Authority, thus, transgressed his authority by passing further order inter alia directing to abandon the claim of pay minus subsistence allowance for the period of suspension inasmuch as there is categorical observation of the Appellate Authority that "the Collector, Kandhamal passed final order vide Order No.286, dated 15.02.2016, with the penalty that the period of suspension from 30.09.2000 to the date of reinstatement, i.e., on 30.09.2013 may be treated as such which was unwarranted and unjustified". It is vehemently contended that such obnoxious observation and direction of the Collector, Kandhamal, acting as quasi judicial Authority, is questionable as he sought to sit over the decision of the Appellate Authority taking shelter of advisory received from the Revenue and Disaster Management Department vide Letter dated 10.12.2020 (Annexure-14), which is not only wholly impermissible in law but also not above reproach.