A single judge bench comprising of Justice V. Narasingh partly allowed a Writ petition under Article 226 & 227 which assailed an order on the ground of 5 year delay in presentation of memorandum of charges. The assailed order was passed by the appellate authority in a disciplinary proceeding. The court, on account of the delay and the fact that 15 years have passed between the so-called dereliction and the retirement of the petitioner, reduced the punishment to the amount of penalty which had already been submitted to the defendant during the pendency of the Writ.
Facts:
The Petitioner while working as Sectional Supervisor and in charge of Sub-Divisional Manager Ghatagaon Sub-Division was proceeded against in a disciplinary proceeding for several irregularities causing financial loss to the Orissa Forest Development Corporation (OFDC). The Disciplinary Authority passed an order directing recovery of an amount of Rs.1,08,258/- and stoppage of one annual increment with cumulative effect. The Petitioner preferred an appeal but the appellate authority ordered for reducing the amount to Rs.72,172/- and directing for stoppage of one annual increment without cumulative effect
The petitioner challenged the order before the Orissa HC on the ground that the departmental proceeding delayed in initiation and since the Petitioner in due discharge of his official duties was regularly submitting his monthly progress report, which was never objected to, it is not open to the authorities to start a disciplinary proceeding after delay of about 5 years.
However the contention of the opposite side was that the appellate authority has reduced the recovery to just 1/3rd of the total loss and further modified the direction to stoppage of one annual increment without cumulative effect. Further, it was contended that since there is no irregularity in the decision making process, this Court in exercise of the power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India cannot sit as an appellate authority
The petitioner has paid Rs. 22000/- in deference to an order passed by the HC during the pendency of the Writ petition
Observations of the court
The jurisdiction of the HC in a departmental proceeding where there is no evident procedural irregularity is limited. In the present case, the finding that the loss was caused due to the petitioner cannot be faulted except the unexplained delay in the initiation of the proceedings
The grounds for delay were not meaningfully answered by the defendants. The reply only stated that the detection was made in 2004 but there is no plausible explanation as to why the authorities had taken 5 more years to initiate the disciplinary proceeding. Since the Petitioner has retired in 2019 and the dereliction of duty occurred more than a decade and a half before the retirement of the duty, the cause of justice and equity would be sub served if the recovery is modified and confined to the amount as recovered (Rs.22,000/-) taking into account that the Petitioner has retired since 2019.
Decision:
The court ordered the quantum of punishment to be limited to the amount so recovered during the pendency of the Writ.
Citation: WP(C) No.3513 of 2012
Case: Radahkrushna Ghosh Vs Orissa Forest Development Corporation Ltd. & Ors
Coram: Justice V Narasingh
Decided On: 12th October 2022
Read Judgment @Latestlaws.com
Picture Source :
