Ramakanta Ray vs Unknown
2022 Latest Caselaw 2832 Ori

                  IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

                                    WPC (OAC) No.1349 of 2015

                Ramakanta Ray                         ....          Petitioner
                                                       None
                                         -versus-
                State of Odisha & others            ....           Opp.parties
                              Mr.S.N. Patnaik, Addl. Govt. Advocate

                       CORAM:
                       JUSTICE M.S.SAHOO
                                           ORDER

Order No. 23.06.2022

01. 1. This matter is taken up through hybrid mode.

2. The writ petition has been registered before this Court on 16.12.2021 after the Original Application was transferred upon abolition of the learned State Administrative Tribunal, Cuttack Bench, Cuttack.

3. On perusal of the available order-sheets of the learned Tribunal, it is indicated that notices were issued on 13.05.2015 and the matter was never taken up/pursued after 20.02.2017.

4. The Original Application was filed in the year 2015 by the petitioner challenging the order of stoppage of provisional pension after the petitioner was convicted by the learned Court of Special Judge, Vigilance, Cuttack by judgment dated 24.03.2014 in T.R. Case No.34 of 2010. The applicant was released on bail by the learned Special Judge, Vigilance, Cuttack on 16.09.2009. In the meanwhile, the applicant was suspended due to such charges. However, after being released on bail, he was reinstated on service on 07.05.2010.

5. On perusal of the order-sheets of the learned Tribunal, it is apparent that the learned Tribunal though has noted the // 2 //

conviction in its order dated 13.05.2015, but has treated the matter as if the Departmental Proceeding has to be initiated post conviction in a criminal case and thereby referred to Rule-7 and Rule-66 of the OCS Pension Rules.

6. It is submitted by the learned Additional Government Advocate that conviction in a criminal case entails forfeiture of past service and the result in stoppage of pension, in view of the fact that any initiation of the disciplinary proceeding cannot decide the validity of a judgment of conviction passed by the competent court of jurisdiction. From the perusal of the pleadings of the Original Application, it is also not indicated that any other disciplinary proceeding was initiated apart from the criminal case that resulted in conviction.

7. Having heard learned Additional Government Advocate the matter is adjourned to 11.08.2022 to grant another opportunity to the petitioner.

( M.S.Sahoo) Judge

Gs