WP(C)/9761/2015
2021 Latest Caselaw 53 Ori

                                   W.P.(C) No. 9761 of 2015




04.   04.01.2021               This      matter   is   taken   up   through   video
                   conferencing.
                               Heard learned Standing Counsel for the School
                   & Mass Education Department for the petitioners.
                               Petitioners in this writ petition assail the order
                   dated 31.8.2012 passed by the Orissa Administrative
                   Tribunal, Bhubaneswar in O.A. No. 25 of 2011.
                               Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted
                   that the observation made by the Tribunal that under Rule
                   18(1) of the OCS(CCA) Rules, 1962 which lays down that
                   where a penalty is imposed on a Government servant on the
                   ground of conduct which has led to his conviction on a
                   criminal charge, the disciplinary authority may consider the
                   circumstances of the case and pass such orders there on, it
                   deems fit. He further submits that such observation of the
                   Tribunal   misinterpreting      the   relevant   provisions   of
                   OCS(CCA) Rules, 1969. Hence the impugned order needs to
ks
                   be interfered with.
                               It appears from the impugned order that the
                   opposite party No.1 joined Government service as a Primary
                   School Teacher on 13.9.1957. While continuing in service,
                   an FIR was lodged against him on 6.4.1990. On receipt of
                   information from the police he was placed under suspension
                   by order dated 26.4.1990. The learned S.D.J.M. by judgment
                   dated 12.11.1991 acquitted the applicant. However another
                   criminal case was initiated against the opposite party No.1
                   wherein he was convicted. After release from the jail custody
                   the applicant moved the authority through a representation
                       2




for his reinstatement in service. The authority by order dated
31.3.1998 reinstated the applicant in service with effect from
the very date which was also the date of superannuation of
the applicant. After retirement the applicant applied to the
authority for regularization of his services and sanction of
pension. The authority by order dated 13.8.1998 passed the
order directing dismissal of the applicant w.e.f. 26.4.1990
which was the date of his suspension. Challenging the same
appellant preferred the Original Application with a prayer to
quash the order dated 13.8.1998.
            The Tribunal after hearing learned counsel for
the parties and taking into consideration Rule-18(i) of the
O.C.S.(C.C.&A) Rules, 1962 as well as the decision in the
case of Sri Gurunath Pradhan Vrs. State of Orissa reported
in 1979(2)SLR 118(Ori) held that the impugned order does
not show that the disciplinary authority considered the
circumstances of the case on the basis of the conduct of the
applicant and came to the conclusion that the applicant
deserved the extreme penalty of dismissal. No document was
produced by the respondents to show that such an exercise
was at all undertaken by the disciplinary authority before
imposing the extreme penalty of dismissal. Accordingly
quashed the impugned order and directed the respondents
to pay the pension and other retiral benefits of the applicant
as per Rules, within a period of six months from the date of
receipt of a copy of the order. It was also observed that the
period for which the applicant was under suspension as well
as in jail custody shall not count towards qualifying service
                         3




for the purpose of pension and other retiral benefits.
              In view of the above since the Tribunal has
applied its mind and also taken into consideration the rules
as well as Article 311 of the Constitution of India, we are not
inclined to interfere with the impugned order as there is no
error apparent on the same.
              Accordingly the writ petition is dismissed.
              Due to COVID-19, the parties may utilize the
soft copy of this order available in the High Court's website
or print out thereof at par with the certified copies in the
manner prescribed vide Court's Notice No.4587 dated
25.03.2020.
                                         ..................
                                          S.Panda,J.

....................... S.K.Panigrahi, J