DAMODAR MEHER Vs. STATE OF ODISHA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In the present writ application, the petitioner challenges the order of punishment imposed on him vide order dtd. 16/8/2017 after being found guilty of misconduct in a departmental proceeding held against him. It is claimed that the departmental proceeding was not conducted as per rules and against the principles of natural justice.

(2.) The facts of the case are that the petitioner is an officer belonging to Odisha Welfare Service-II. While he was working as Assistant District Welfare Officer, Dhenkanal, he was promoted to the rank of O.W.S.-II Group-B and posted as District Welfare Officer, Rayagada vide notification dtd. 3/8/2011. By office order dtd. 15/12/2011, the petitioner was transferred from Rayagada and posted as Special Officer, DKDA, Parsali but at that time the petitioner claims to have been on official duty at Bhubaneswar to attend a meeting at SC and ST, RTI, Bhubaneswar presided by opposite party no.1. While at Bhubaneswar, the petitioner further claims to have fallen ill and therefore applied for leave from 19/12/2011, which was sought to be extended from time to time. In the meantime, being aggrieved by his transfer as Special Officer, DKDA, Parsali, the petitioner approached the Odisha Administrative Tribunal in O.A. No. 4573 (C) of 2011. Initially, the learned Tribunal, vide order dtd. 21/12/2011 directed the parties to maintain status quo as on that date and thereafter on 23/3/2012, learned Tribunal directed the opposite party no.1 to take immediate steps to post the petitioner in any district as DWO or in any equivalent post in any nearby district. By a memo dtd. 31/7/2012, the petitioner was communicated with a set of charges in a departmental proceeding initiated against him for disobedience of Government orders and misconduct on the allegation that though he was relieved from the office of the DWO, Rayagada w.e.f. 16/12/2011 (AN), he had not handed over the detailed charge to his reliever nor had joined in his place of posting at Parsali nor applied for leave. It is alleged by the petitioner that the documents sought to be relied upon as per the memo of evidence were never supplied to him. Nevertheless, he submitted his written statement of defence intimating the interim orders passed by the learned Tribunal. Again, vide order dtd. 14/9/2012, he was served with additional charges to the effect that despite direction of the learned Tribunal in its order dtd. 23/3/2012, he had not joined in his new place of posting by remaining unauthorizedly absent from his duty from 17/12/2011. The petitioner submitted a reply to the additional charges also. The written statement of defence submitted by him not being accepted, it was decided to hold an enquiry by appointing the Director (OBC) as enquiring officer and DWO, Rayagada as marshalling officer. It is further alleged that the enquiring officer did not examine any witness either on behalf of the department or the delinquent and submitted his report dtd. 17/5/2013 by holding the petitioner guilty of the charges only on perusal of relevant records produced by the DWO, Rayagada. A copy of the enquiry report having been served upon the petitioner, he submitted his reply. Again, vide order dtd. 22/7/2014, he was served with a 2nd show cause notice indicating the proposed penalties to be imposed on him. He submitted his representation against the same on 27/8/2014. However, without considering his reply, the opposite party no.1 passed final order on 16/8/2017, enclosed as Annexure-14 to the writ petition, by imposing the following penalties:

(3.) A counter affidavit has been filed by opposite party no.1 disputing the averments of the writ petition. On facts, it is stated that consequent upon joining of his substitute, Sri Santosh Kumar Mishra as DWO, Rayagada, the petitioner was relieved by the Collector, Rayagada w.e.f. 16/12/2011 (AN) and directed to handover the detailed charges to his successor immediately, but the petitioner did not sign the OGFR and rather, left the office without obtaining permission of the higher authorities. As a result, on 17/12/2011, the office chamber of DWO, Rayagada was found locked and it was not possible to open the office as its key was with the petitioner. Further, despite being relieved from his duty as aforesaid, the petitioner neither joined in his new place as Special Officer, DKDA, Parsali nor applied for leave in spite of instructions issued by the Department vide letter dtd. 1/2/2012 along with newspaper publication vide notice dtd. 1/2/2012. Therefore, a disciplinary proceeding was initiated against him for disobedience of orders of the higher authorities and for remaining absent in his place of posting unauthorizedly and causing dislocation of official work. It is further stated that since the learned Tribunal vide order dtd. 23/3/2012 in O.A. No. 4573 (C) of 2011 had directed the opposite party no.1 to post the petitioner as DWO or in any equivalent post in any nearby district, despite his unauthorized absence, he was posted as Special Officer, ITDA, Phulbani vide office order dtd. 25/4/2012. However, he did not join in the said place of posting nor submitted any leave application, for which additional charges were framed vide memorandum dtd. 14/9/2012. It is admitted that the enquiry report was finalized by the enquiring officer after perusal of records produced by ADWO (Hqrs.), Rayagada on behalf of DWO, Rayagada in presence of the petitioner.