Odissa Forest Development vs Radhakrushna Ghosh
2023 Latest Caselaw 2836 Ori

                  IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

                                     W.A. No.1503 of 2022

             Odissa Forest Development              ....         Appellants
             Corporation Ltd., Bhubaneswar and
             others
                            Mr. Santosh Kumar Pattanayak, Senior Advocate
                                        -versus-
             Radhakrushna Ghosh                     ....        Respondent


                         CORAM:
                         THE CHIEF JUSTICE
                         JUSTICE G. SATAPATHY

                                            ORDER

05.04.2023 Order No.

01. 1. The challenge by the Odisha Forest Development Corporation (OFDC) Limited in the present writ appeal is to the judgment dated 12th October, 2022 passed by the learned Single Judge disposing of W.P.(C) No.3513 of 2012 filed by the Respondent, who incidentally is at present 64 years old.

2. The Respondent had challenged the order passed by the Disciplinary Authority, at the end of a disciplinary inquiry, directing recovery of a sum of Rs.1,08,258/- and stoppage of one annual increment with cumulative effect. The Respondent also challenged the order of the Appellate Authority reducing the recovery amount to Rs.72,172/- and directing stoppage of one annual increment without cumulative effect.

3. The factors that weighed the learned Single Judge in further modifying the above punishment by confining the recovery amount to Rs.22,000/- were as follows:

i. The disciplinary inquiry had been initiated on 19th May, 2009 nearly 6 years after the Respondent had been relieved from the post that he was holding during which time the loss is supposed to have been caused to the OFDC;

ii. There was no plausible explanation for the delay in initiation of the disciplinary proceedings when admittedly the loss was detected some time in 2003 itself;

iii. The Respondent retired in 2019 whereas the so called dereliction in duty occurred in 2003 i.e. more than a decade and half before the Respondent retired.

4. Having heard Mr. Santosh Kumar Pattanayak, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Appellants and having considered the impugned judgment of the learned Single Judge, the Court is of the view that no sufficient grounds have been made out for interference. It is nevertheless clarified that the impugned order of the learned Single Judge will be treated as having been passed in the peculiar facts of the case and will not constitute a precedent.

5. The writ appeal is dismissed with the above observations.

(Dr. S. Muralidhar) Chief Justice

(G. Satapathy) Judge M. Panda