PREMANJAN PARIDA Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ application is directed against the order of Orissa Administrative Tribunal, Bhubaneswar dated 27.2.2006 passed in O.A. No. 1229 of 2004.

(2.) THE Petitioner, who was Applicant before the Tribunal, entered into Government service as Sub -Inspector of Police having been directly recruited to the post in the year 1975, subsequently he was promoted to the post of Inspector of Police in the year 1992. While working as such, a departmental proceeding was initiated against him and ultimately he was exonerated of the charges by order dated 13.5.2004. When the matter was pending before the disciplinary authority, promotion of officers to the rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police was considered and the Petitioner's case was also considered and the opinion of Promotion Committee had been kept in sealed cover. After the Petitioner was exonerated of the charges, the sealed cover should have been opened and on the basis of recommendation of Selection Board, he should have been given promotion to the post of Deputy Superintendent of Police. No action in this regard having been taken, the Petitioner approached the Tribunal in O.A. No. 1214 of 2004. The said O.A. was disposed of on 11.10.2004 directing the Government to consider the matter and in pursuance of the direction of the Tribunal, the Government by order dated 12.4.2005 gave promotion to the Petitioner to the rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police. The Petitioner having been exonerated of the charges, he should have been given promotion from the date others were given promotion in pursuance of the recommendation of D.P.C. in the year 2002 but such benefit was not extended to him and he was given promotion from 2005 only. The Petitioner therefore made a representation to give him promotion retrospectively from the date others were promoted on the basis of recommendation of D.P.C. but no action was taken. In order to prevent the Petitioner from getting any further promotion and the aforesaid benefits, a fresh proceeding was initiated and charges were communicated to the Petitioner on 29.9.2004. The Petitioner therefore approached the Tribunal challenging initiation of the proceeding in respect of the charges which relate to an incident of 1997 and sought for quashing the departmental proceeding.

(3.) IT was contended before the Tribunal that the departmental proceeding having been initiated after laps of seven years from the alleged date of occurrence, which constitute the subject matter of charges, initiation of such proceeding is unsustainable under law. Reliance was placed on some decisions by the Petitioner before the Tribunal. However, the Tribunal on analysis of the decisions relied upon by the Petitioner found that the said decisions relate to delay in disposal of the departmental proceeding and do not relate to delay in initiation of the departmental proceeding. Accordingly the Tribunal dismissed the Original Application. Shri R.K. Rath, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Petitioner assailed the impugned order on the ground that the decisions relied upon by the Petitioner before the Tribunal not only relate to delay in disposal of departmental proceedings but also delay in initiation of departmental proceeding. The Tribunal without looking into the judgments cited by the Petitioner held the same to be inapplicable in the facts of the case and dismissed the Original Application. It was also contended by the learned Senior Counsel that the charges leveled in the departmental proceeding relates to some incidents in the year 1997 and after laps of seven years, the Petitioner could not have been proceeded with in respect of those charges. For the above reasons, according to the learned Counsel for the Petitioner, the Tribunal should have allowed the Original Application and quashed the proceeding.