Pramath Patnaik, J. - (1.) In the accompanied writ application, the petitioner has inter alia, prayed for issuance of writ of certiorari for quashing order dated 20.09.2012, whereby impugned order of punishment awarding the following penalty has been imposed upon the petitioner: (i)Withholding five annual increments for the period of five years with cumulative effect; (ii).Prohibiting him not to be posted in any responsible post in future. (iii).Giving him warning for future; (iv).He shall be only entitled for subsistence allowance for the period of suspension; And further for quashing appellate order dated 24.09.2013 passed by the appellate authority rejecting the appeal of the petitioner thereby confirming the order passed by the disciplinary authority and; further for direction upon the respondents to release the salary for the entire period of suspension and other payable allowances.
(2.) Sans details, the facts as disclosed in the writ application, is that the petitioner while working as Sub-Divisional Agricultural Officercum-I/C of District Agriculture Officer, Pakur was put under suspension and was served with a memo of charge, containing mainly two charges, as follows: (i)Charge No. 1: He has committed serious irregularities during the period of his posting. (ii).Charge No. 2: He is not vigilant towards discharge of his duties and not having sincerity and interest for the S.C & S.T people as a result of which agriculture work stood affected despite the favourable season. In pursuance of the framing of charge, Enquiry Officer was appointed, who enquired into the matter and submitted its report and basing on the findings recorded by the enquiry officer, the disciplinary authority found some of the charges to be partially proved and some of the charges not proved and passed the impugned order of punishment. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the order impugned, the petitioner preferred appeal before the appellate authority and the appellate authority by cryptic and non-speaking order has rejected the appeal of the petitioner, whereby confirming the order of disciplinary authority.
(3.) Left with no alternative, efficacious and speedy remedy under article 226 of the Constitution of India, invoking extraordinary jurisdiction, the petitioner has approached this Court for redressal of his grievances.;