Orissa High Court
Nirod Chandra Sahani vs State Of Odisha And Others on 22 March, 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
W.P.(C) No. 20623 of 2009
Nirod Chandra Sahani .... Petitioner
Mr. Trilochan Nanda, Advocate
-versus-
State of Odisha and Others .... Opposite Parties
Mr. S.N. Das, Addl. Standing Counsel
CORAM:
THE CHIEF JUSTICE
JUSTICE R.K. PATTANAIK
ORDER
Order No. 22.03.2022
08. 1. The challenge in the present petition is to an order dated 16th
October, 2009 passed by the Odisha Administrative Tribunal,
Bhubaneswar (OAT) in O.A. No.1367 of 1999 and O.A. No.1856
of 1999 filed by the Petitioner.
2. The background facts are that the Petitioner entered into
Government service as a Junior Clerk in the Collectorate,
Bolangir with effect from 17th March, 1958. Thereafter, he was
promoted to the rank of Upper Division Clerk. While working at
the Tahasil Office, Bolangir a criminal prosecution was lodged
against the Petitioner on the charge of criminal embezzlement of
Government funds punishable under Section 409 of the Indian
Penal Code. He was found guilty by the trial Court and the said
conviction and sentence was confirmed by the Appellate Court.
However, the revision petition filed which was allowed by this
Court by its judgment dated 21st April, 1980.
3. During the pendency of the criminal case, the Petitioner was
placed under suspension from 11th February, 1967 onwards. Upon
conviction by the Trial Court, he was dismissed from service with
effect from 28th April, 1975. After the High Court acquitted him,
he was reinstated in Government service by an Office order dated
27th April, 1984. The period from 2nd April, 1980 till the date of
joining was treated as duty. However, no decision was taken
regarding the period of suspension and the period of dismissal.
4. On 1st April, 1980 the Petitioner gave notice of voluntary
retirement with a request to allow remaining on leave during the
notice period. It is contended that in the absence of any
communication the Petitioner 'presumed' that his notice was
accepted on expiry of three months. However, on 3rd December,
1984 his request for voluntary retirement was refused by the
Opposite Parties on the ground that he did not have more than 20
years of qualifying service. On 18th November, 1986 departmental
proceedings was initiated against the Petitioner on the same
charges for which the criminal case was instituted against him and
ended in acquittal. On conclusion of the disciplinary proceedings
on 5th October, 1991 the Petitioner was awarded the following
punishment:
"1) The period of suspension from 11.2.67 to
27.4.1975 be treated as such.
2) The period of dismissal from 28.4.74 to 1.4.80
be treated as leave due as admissible.
3) Two increments of the delinquent be stopped
with cumulative effect.
The delinquent is deemed to be reinstated with
effect from 28.4.1975."
5. The Petitioner's appeal against the above punishment was
dismissed on 22nd June, 1998. Meanwhile, a second disciplinary
proceeding was initiated against him on 18th November, 1986
which culminated an order dated 4th September, 1992 removing
the Petitioner from service with effect from 5th August, 1984. The
appeal against this punishment was dismissed on 21st April, 1999.
6. It must be noted here that during the pendency of the present
petition the Petitioner expired and by order dated 6th September,
2017 his legal representatives (LRs) including his wife and
children were brought on record.
7. Today, learned counsel for the Petitioner informs the Court that
the wife of the Petitioner has also expired. The children of the
Petitioner at the time filing of the present writ petition in 2009
were aged 56 years, 50 years, 53 years, 47 years, 44 years and 42
years. Consequently, some of them are at present in their 60s and
one of them is perhaps nearly 70 years old. It is very unlikely that
any of the children would be interested in the family pension
payable on the death of the Petitioner. Nevertheless, the Court has
examined the case on merits.
8. As rightly analyzed by the OAT, one of the charges on which
the Petitioner faced disciplinary proceeding was that he remained
absent from duty from 4th August, 1984 till issuance of the charge
memo dated 8th November, 1986. The second proceeding was also
regarding his unauthorized absence. The Petitioner had no
reasonable explanation to offer for his absence other than saying
that he had assumed his request for voluntary retirement has been
accepted. This submission is not convicting at all. For a person
who had been in government service for a sufficiently long period
of time, it is unlikely that the Petitioner did not know that unless
his request for VRS was formally accepted, there could be no
presumption in that regard.
9. The OAT has in the impugned order set aside the penalty of
stoppage of increments with cumulative effect since that had not
been enumerated as penalty under Rule 13 of the CCA Rules. It
found no violation of principles of natural justice as the Petitioner
had virtually admitted his unauthorized absence.
10. Having heard learned counsel for the LRs of the Petitioner,
the Court is not satisfied that any ground has been made out for
interference with the impugned order of the OAT. The central
charge of unauthorized absence on duty was factually admitted by
the Petitioner without any convincing explanation for such
absence. It cannot be said, therefore, that the punishment awarded
was unwarranted or disproportionate.
11. There is no merit in this petition and it is accordingly,
dismissed as such.
12. An urgent certified copy of this order be issued as per Rules.
(Dr. S. Muralidhar)
Chief Justice
(R.K. Pattanaik )
Judge
S.K. Jena/P.A.
