- (1.) THE petitioner namely, Swapneswar Lenka who was working as Constable in Railway Protection Force bearing No.5463 is before this Court questioning the legality and validity of Annexure -1 dated 22.2.1991 passed by the Divisional Security Commissioner, Khurda urging various facts and legal contentions.
(2.) THIS Court on previous date of hearing on 26.3.2012 after hearing the learned counsel for the parties at length directed the learned counsel appearing for the opposite party nos.1 and 2 to make submission on the following questions: - (a) Whether pursuant to the order dated 22.6.1990 (Annexure -6) the petitioner reported for duty as directed as per the records maintained by it.? (b) Whether on the liberty granted to the Railways disciplinary action was initiated against the petitioner after 25.6.1990? (c) Whether the termination order passed is legal and justifiable?
(3.) WITH reference to the aforesaid questions, learned counsel Mr. Jagabandhu Sahoo has filed an affidavit being sworn to by Chaitanya Marndi, son of Late Mohan Marndi working as Senior Divisional Security Commissioner. Our attention was drawn to paragraph -3 of the affidavit stating that the documents under Annexure -6 to the writ petition is a report which was submitted by Officer -in -charge, RPF, Palasa to the Divisional Security Commissioner, Khurda intimating unauthorized absence of the petitioner from 5.4.1990 to 21.6.1990 and to take necessary disciplinary action against the constable. He has not stated whether the direction to him to report for duty as mentioned in the said letter at the unnumbered paragraph -2, the relevant portion of the said paragraph reads thus: - "On 21.6.1990, the said constable appeared this office with fit PMC from 5.4.1990 to 20.6.1990 with remarks declaring him fit for duties from 21.6.90 which was duly issued by Medical Officer, Zonal Dispensary Unit -VIII, Bhubaneswar -12 (Govt.). As such he was directed to ADMO, Palasa with a memo for necessary action on 21.6.1990 after obtaining his explanation. Accordingly he returned to the post with duty fit certificate no 583506 declaring fit for duties from 22.6.90. And he taken on duty from the same date and made a detail diary entry no.406 dated 22.6.90 A.M." On the basis of the said letter, whether the petitioner has reported for duty pursuant to the direction contained in the above letter, no statement is made and no averment is forthcoming in the affidavit filed on behalf of the opposite parties. Since then, document issued by the office of the opposite party, there is a mentioned regarding the petitioner reporting for duty and thereafter observation made in the unnumbered last paragraph that if the petitioner fails to give any information to the office, the period mentioned in the said letter be treated as per rules and take necessary disciplinary action against the petitioner -constable. His PMC fit certificate, Duty Certificate of ADMO/PSA and his explanations are sent herewith for favour of your disposal. From reading of the contention of the said letter, order dated 22.6.1990 has been complied with and permitted the petitioner to report for duty. Thereafter, liberty is granted in the said letter for the satisfactory explanation regarding his unauthorized absence and Disciplinary Authority has initiated Disciplinary Proceedings against the petitioner is evident from the document produced at Annexure -8, wherein the relevant unnumbered paragraph reads thus: - " Disciplinary Authority ASC/KUR after going through the findings of E.O. and evidences on record have concurred with the findings of E.O.'s verdict of guilty and opined to impose penalty of removal from service, but since the ASC/KUR is not competent to impose penalty of removal from service to the delinquent constable, he forwarded the case for imposing the proposed penalty of removal from service as per rule 154.2 of the RPF Rules, 1987.";