Research › Search › Judgment

Orissa High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 370 (ORI)

Surendranath Swain v. State of Orissa

2012-08-23

M.P.MISRA, S.N.DASH

body2012
ORDER 23.08.12 - Heard learned counsel for the applicant and the learned Govt. Advocate. 2. The applicant while serving as a driver in the police department at Balasore, unauthorisedly remained absent from duty along with the Police Jeep that was allotted to him and used that Police Jeep to roam with his family members by coming to Cuttack, Puri and Konark. The applicant remained out of head-quarters with the Police Jeep for two days. Being served with a copy of the charge memo, the applicant pleaded guilty to the charge levelled against him, though he had explained that he had taken away the Govt. Jeep due to illness of his mother. We have perused the departmental proceeding file o~ production of the same by the learned Govt. Advocate in the Court today. We find that the departmental proceeding was conducted after following the Rules, as laid down under Rule 15 of OCS (CC & A) Rules, 1962 and also by observing the provisions of Police Manual. After calling for necessary explanation from the applicant, the disciplinary authority imposed the punishment of discharge from service by order dated 05.11.2002 at Annexure-1. The applicant preferred an appeal before the D.I.G. of Police, Balasore and the appellate authority refused to interfere with the order of punishment. Thereafter, the applicant challenged the appellate order before the Director General of Police & Inspector General of Police, Orissa, Cuttack with a revision application and the revisional authority by its order dated 23.11.2005 at Annexure-5 modified the order of punishment from "discharge" to "removal" from service. The applicant challenged the said order of punishment in this Tribunal in O.A. No. 492/2007 and this Tribunal by its order dated 12.04.2007 disposed of the said O.A. with an observation that this being the first instance of delinquency of the applicant and since the applicant pleaded guilty to the charge, a lenient view should have been taken. Simultaneously, the Tribunal quashed the order of punishment and remitted the matter back to the revisional authority to reconsider the matter. Pursuant to the said order of the Tribunal the Director General of Police & Inspector General of Police by his order dated 17.08.2007 at Annexure-7 reconsidered the matter and held that there was no reason to take a different view from the one already taken. Pursuant to the said order of the Tribunal the Director General of Police & Inspector General of Police by his order dated 17.08.2007 at Annexure-7 reconsidered the matter and held that there was no reason to take a different view from the one already taken. The applicant now seeks to challenge the said order of Director General of Police & Inspector General of Police in the present O.A. 3. This Tribunal by its order observed that on the facts and circumstances of the case, a lenient view should have been taken. This Tribunal took into consideration the facts that the applicant had pleaded guilty to the charge and that it was the first offence committed by him. The Tribunal also drew the attention of the revisional authority to the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Kailash Nath Gupta v. Enquiry Officer (B.K. Raj), Allahabad Bank and others reported in AIR 2003 SC 1377 . In spite of this, the Director General of Police & Inspector General of Police refused to deviate, from the earlier order passed by him. 4. A bare perusal of the order passed by the revisional authority shows that the said order is not in terms of the direction issued by this Tribunal in its order dated 12.04.2007 in O.A. No. 492/2007 and has been passed in a mechanical manner without application of mind. The D.G. & I.G. in the impugned order dated 17.08.2007 has also not given any reason to stick to his earlier stand. Accordingly, we hold that the impugned order dated 17.08.2007 is not tenable in the eye of law and is liable to be quashed. 5. The Respondents are directed to reinstate the applicant in service within a period of two months from receipt of a copy of this order. They are at liberty to impose any punishment on the applicant other than dismissal, removal and compulsory retirement. The applicant shall not however be entitled to any back wages. 6. The O.A. is accordingly disposed of. O.A. disposed of.