The Orissa High Court stated that the disciplinary authority must follow the appellate order and should not be swayed by advice from other sources.
The Orissa High Court explained that the Disciplinary Authority must follow the Appellate Order without being swayed by advice from other sources. The Court was reviewing a writ petition concerning an Office Order that limited payments to a retired employee. Justice Murahari Sri Raman, in a Single Bench, noted, “Rule 30 of the OCS (CCA) Rules clearly states that the Disciplinary Authority must implement the Appellate Order without outside influence. Thus, the Order dated 05.04.2021 issued by the Disciplinary Authority, opposite party No.3, needs this Court’s intervention.”
Advocate Krishna Chandra Sahu represented the petitioner, while Additional Standing Counsel Arnav Behera represented the opposing parties. The petitioner, who was a Revenue Inspector at Chakapad Tahasil, faced a case that led to his suspension under Rule 12(2)(b) of the Odisha Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1962. After being suspended for over a year, the Disciplinary Authority-cum-Collector and District Magistrate initiated a departmental proceeding against him. The petitioner then filed an application with the Odisha Administrative Tribunal, which issued an interim order preventing the opposing parties from taking further action in the departmental proceeding, leaving the case pending. However, despite the interim order, the petitioner was dismissed from service. Subsequently, a criminal case under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 concluded, resulting in the petitioner’s reinstatement. Unhappy with the suspension period, he approached the Tribunal and, feeling unsatisfied, appealed to the Appellate Authority. This led him to the High Court.
The High Court stated that when a government employee is dismissed but later reinstated, or would have been reinstated if not for retirement while under suspension, the authority responsible for reinstatement must decide on the payment and allowances for the time the employee was absent or suspended, up to their retirement date. The Court observed that the situation does not meet the criteria of clause (1) of Rule 91 of the Odisha Service Code. It noted that since the allegations against the petitioner were not proven, leading to their acquittal by the Special Judge (Vigilance), and the disciplinary punishment was overturned by the Appellate Authority, the petitioner should not face penalties as indicated in the new order from the Disciplinary Authority, which was issued following the Appellate Order and advice from the Revenue and Disaster Management Department.
The Court has determined that the Order from 05.04.2021 (Annexure-15) is not valid under the law. Therefore, using its special authority under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the Court has decided to cancel the Order from 05.04.2021 issued by the Collector of Kandhamal. As a result, the High Court has resolved the writ petition and annulled the contested order.
Cause Title- Kansari Behera v. State of Odisha & Ors.
Appearance:
Petitioner: Advocates Krishna Chandra Sahu, Sudarshan Pradhan, D.K. Mahalik, Ajaya Kumar Samal, and Monalisa Tripathy.
Opposite Parties: ASC Arnav Behera
