BIJAYA KUMAR ROUTRAY Vs. REGISTRAR ADMINISTRATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY means of this writ petition a question has arisen before this Court as to whether on accepting the report of the Enquiring Officer by the Disciplinary authority and exonerating him from the charges, the period of suspension can be treated as such

(2.) THE brief facts of the case are that the petitioner, who was working as the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Sambalpur was placed under suspension vide order -dated 20.1.1995 by this Court on administrative side pending conclusion of the enquiry. Consequently, a charge sheet was issued against the petitioner on 26.8.1995. Thereafter another additional charge sheet was issued on 15.1.1996. The petitioner submitted written statement and thereafter an enquiry was conducted under the Orissa Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1962 (hereinafter referred to as 'the C.C.A. Rules'). After conclusion of the enquiry, the Enquiring Officer, i.e., the District Judge, Cuttack, had submitted his report holding that none of the charges was found to have been proved against the petitioner and thus he had opined that the delinquent needs to be exonerated of the charges. This report was submitted on 15.5.1997. Thereafter two Hon'ble Judges of this Court had made the scrutiny of the enquiry report and found that as many as nine charges were levelled against the delinquent officer and the Enquiring Officer absolved him of all the charges by giving weighty reasons for coming to the conclusion. The Hon'ble Judges opined that there was no material to disagree with the findings arrived at by the Enquiring Officer and they recommended that the report submitted by the Enquiring Officer may be accepted and the delinquent officer may be exonerated of the charges. This recommendation is dated 16.7.1997. Thereafter, this Court on administrative side took a decision on 12.11.1997 and accepted the enquiry report as well as the comments of two Hon'ble Judges of this Court thereon and decided to reinstate the petitioner but further decided that the period of suspension shall be treated as such. Needless to mention here that the petitioner moved several representations against the said decision but in vein. He has also faced the consequences of that decision to the extent that his efficiency bar was not crossed and his position has been lowered down in the seniority list because of the reason that the period of suspension was not treated as a period spent on duty. Being aggrieved, the petitioner has filed the instant writ petition. Under the C.C.A. Rules there are two types of suspension. One is provided in Rule 12 in which it has been laid down that the appointing authority or any authority to which it is subordinate or any authority empowered by the Governor or the appointing authority in that behalf may place a Government servant under suspension where the disciplinary proceeding against him is contemplated or is pending; or where a case against him in respect of any criminal offence is under investigation or trial. This type of suspension order is not treated as punishment as it does not cast stigma against the delinquent but in Rule 13 thereof, the suspension has been shown as one of the punishments and hence the same is stigmatic. Rule 13 is quoted as under : -