Research › Search › Judgment

Orissa High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 6 (ORI)

Akshaya Kumar Satpathy v. Union of India and four

2012-01-03

B.K.MISRA, M.M.DAS

body2012
ORDER 3.1.2013 - Heard. The petitioner faced the disciplinary proceeding on the following charges: "Article-I Gross misconduct mis-demeanour and levelling of false allegations against the seniors in that No. 734290111 HC/GD/A.K.Satpathy of 'A' Coy, CISF Unit NALCO Angul made a complaint before the Commandant on 3.1.2001 in Commandant's chamber where he levelled false allegations against Asst. Commandant/ Smelter, Coy Commander 'A' Coy and others in the matter of duty deployment, issue of passes, movement of vehicles, etc. Article-II Gross misconduct, carelessness and negligence in that No.734290111 HC/GD/ A.K.Satpathy of 'A' Coy, CISF Unit NALCO Angul while detailed for 'C' shift duty on 11.01.2001 at 'A' coy, did not turn up for duty and remained absent deliberately. Article-III Gross misconduct and disobedience of lawful order in that No. 734290111 HC/GD/ A.K.Satpathy of 'A' Coy, CISF Unit NALCO Angul when asked by Inspector/Exe. G.S.. Patel to receive the official letter on 11.01.2001 at about 21.30 hrs at his Quarter No.CCB/42 at CISF Complex, he refused to receive the same after going through the contents of the letter, in presence of HC/GD Om Prakash and Const. V. Pandit Article-IV Gross misconduct and unauthorized absence from Unit Hqrs in that No. 734290111 HC/GD/A.K.Satpathy of 'A' Coy, CISF Unit NALCO Angul is absenting from the unit Hqrs. unauthorisedly w.e.f. 12.01.2001." Though Mr. Mishra, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that there was serious irregularities in conducting the disciplinary proceeding against the petitioner, but, without, entering into the same, as they are within the realm of factual dispute, we consider the nature of charges framed. From the same, we find that on the nature of charges framed as quoted above and the basis thereof, the conclusion of the disciplinary authority to compulsorily retire the petitioner amounts to imposing disproportionate punishment. We, therefore, without interfering with the findings of fact with regard to the proof of the charges against the petitioner, remit the matter back to the disciplinary authority to reconsider the punishment imposed on the petitioner, as it appears to this Court that the punishment is harsh and is not proportionate to the delinquency, with a further direction to the disciplinary authority to impose such punishment which shall commensurate with the delinquency. However, with regard to question of entitlement of the petitioner for back wages for the intervening period is also to be looked into by the disciplinary authority and appropriate orders in that regard shall be passed. If the disciplinary authority finds that the petitioner is not entitled to back wages, he may award lump sum compensation for the said period. With the aforesaid observations and directions, the writ petition is disposed of. Urgent certified copy of this order be granted as per rules. Petition disposed of.