JUDGMENT : B.R. SARANGI, J. The petitioner, who was working as Area Manager for Sambalpur under Orissa State Co-operative Marketing Federation Ltd. (OSCMFL), has filed this application seeking to quash the order dated 05.05.2000 at Annexure-23, whereby following a disciplinary proceeding he has been imposed with measure penalty of reverting from the post of Area Manager to Godown Manager, as well as the judgment and order dated 18.09.2002 at Annexure-27 passed in Service Dispute Case No.11 of 2000, by which the learned Member, Cooperative Tribunal, Orissa has confirmed the order of punishment at Annexure-23. 2. Shorn off unnecessary details, the factual matrix of the case is that the petitioner, while working under OSCMFL as Area Manager for Samabalpur, misconducted himself. Accordingly, on 02.08.1999, charges were framed on four heads, namely, (1) misappropriation of stock and cash; (2) manipulation of accounts and breach of trust; (3) negligence in duty and misconduct; and (4) disobedience of office orders and dishonesty. After receipt of charge sheet, the petitioner requested the disciplinary authority to supply necessary documents, including reconciliation statement, but the same were not supplied to him. Consequentially, the petitioner submitted his explanation on 30.8.1999 denying the charges, in absence of relevant documents. 3. On 18.09.1991, one B.K. Panigrahi, Chief Engineer, Electrical (Retd.), who is not an employee of opposite party-OSCMFL, was appointed as inquiry officer in proceeding no.3394 dated 02.08.1999. He conducted enquiry and after its completion, finding the petitioner guilty of charges, submitted his report on 31.01.2000 (Annexure-12) recommending major penalty of dismissal from service. The disciplinary authority, on receipt of the inquiry report, on 04.02.2000 asked the petitioner to submit his explanation to the inquiry report. Accordingly, the petitioner submitted his explanation on 11.02.2000. On consideration of the explanation submitted by the petitioner, the disciplinary authority directed for fresh enquiry. Consequentially, the very same inquiry officer submitted his second inquiry report dated 27.03.2000 (Annexure-19) with the finding that Pitabasa Jena and Balakrushna Sahoo are the real culprits behind the charges. But, however, without trying them, suggested major punishment against the petitioner for demoting him to the next lower rank. The petitioner, on being called upon, submitted his explanation to the second enquiry report on 17.04.2000 (Annexure-20). But, however, without trying them, suggested major punishment against the petitioner for demoting him to the next lower rank. The petitioner, on being called upon, submitted his explanation to the second enquiry report on 17.04.2000 (Annexure-20). In pursuance of second enquiry report dated 27.03.2000 (Annexure-19), the disciplinary authority on 24.04.2000 framed charges against Pitabas Jena and Balakrushna Sahu and asked for explanation for the charges framed against them vide Annexures-21 and 22 respectively. Even though for the selfsame allegation of misappropriation, charges were framed against Pitabas Jena and Balakrushna Sahu, the disciplinary authority on 05.05.2000 vide Annexure-23 held the petitioner alone responsible for misappropriation and demoted/reverted him from the post of Area Manager to Godown Manager. Challenging the said order of reversion dated 05.05.2000 (Annexure-23), the petitioner preferred an appeal/dispute case before the learned Member, Co-operative Tribunal, Orissa which was registered as Service Dispute Case No. 11 of 2000 and vide judgment dated 18.09.2000, the learned Member, Co-operative Tribunal confirmed the order of punishment imposed by the disciplinary authority reverting the petitioner from the post of Area Manager to Godown Manager. Hence, this writ application. 4. While entertaining this writ application, this Court vide order dated 10.03.2003 in Misc. Case No. 176 of 2003 passed an interim order to the effect that if the petitioner had not been reverted pursuant to the impugned order, he should not be reverted without leave of this court. Consequentially, the petitioner continued in the post and, during pendency of this writ application, he has been retired from service on attaining the age of superannuation. 5. Mr. N.C. Panigrahi, learned Sr. Counsel appearing along with Mr. N.K. Tripathy, learned counsel for the petitioner calls in question the legality and propriety of appointment of the inquiry officer in the disciplinary proceeding initiated against the petitioner and contended that in view of the Note-2(a) of Rule84 of the Orissa State Co-operative Marketing Federation Employees Recruitment Classification, Control and Appeal Rules, 1990 (for short “the 1990 Rules”), an outsider cannot be appointed as an inquiry officer and, as such, the retired Chief Engineer, Electrical Mr. B.K. Panigrahi, being an outsider, is not competent to cause enquiry. Therefore, the report so submitted by him and consequential action taken thereof by the disciplinary authority and confirmation made by the appellate authority, cannot sustain in the eye of law. B.K. Panigrahi, being an outsider, is not competent to cause enquiry. Therefore, the report so submitted by him and consequential action taken thereof by the disciplinary authority and confirmation made by the appellate authority, cannot sustain in the eye of law. To substantiate his contention, he has relied upon the judgment of this Court in Siba Kishore Pattnaik v. Chief Engineer, Paradeep Port Trust and another, 1992 LAB. I.C. 2012. 6. Mr. S. Rath appearing on behalf of Mr. Ganeswar Rath, learned Senior Counsel for opposite party no.2 argues with vehemence that as the petitioner was indulged in misappropriation of the corporation fund and misconducted himself, the action taken by the disciplinary authority pursuant to the enquiry report submitted by the inquiry officer imposing major penalty of reversion from the post of Area Manager to Godown Manager is wholly and fully justified and, as such, the confirmation made thereof by the appellate authority cannot be faulted with so as to warrant interference by this Court. More particularly, if the fact finding courts have come to a definite finding concurrently, this Court should be slow to interfere with the same, unless some gross illegality or irregularity is found. 7. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after perusing the records, since pleadings between the parties have been exchanged, with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, this writ petition is being disposed of finally at the stage of admission. 8. The undisputed fact being that the petitioner, who was working as an Area Manager under the opposite party-OSCMFL, was subjected to a disciplinary proceeding and faced major penalty of reversion from the post of Area Manager to Godown Manager by the disciplinary authority, which was confirmed by the appellate authority. But, the sole question, which was raised in course of hearing, is that whether the inquiry officer, on whose inquiry report the punishment was imposed on the petitioner, is competent to conduct the inquiry, being not a cadre person and an outsider to the organization. The answer to the question revolves around the interpretation of sub-clause 2(a) to the Note of Rule 84 of the 1990 Rules, which is quoted hereunder:- “84. Procedure for imposing penalties: 2. The answer to the question revolves around the interpretation of sub-clause 2(a) to the Note of Rule 84 of the 1990 Rules, which is quoted hereunder:- “84. Procedure for imposing penalties: 2. (a) On receipt of the written statement of defence, the disciplinary authority, may itself enquiry into the such articles of charge as are not admitted, or if he considers it necessary to do so, appoint an inquiring authority for the purpose, and where all the articles of charges have been admitted by the employee/workman in his written statement of defence, the disciplinary authority shall record its findings on such charge after taking such evidence as it may deem fit.” (Emphasis supplied) A bare reading of the above provision would make it amply clear that in a departmental proceeding of OSCMFL, on receipt of written statement, the disciplinary authority, may itself enquire into the charges, or appoint an inquiring authority for the purpose. 9. On perusal of the office order dated 18.09.1999 at Annexure-10, it is found that one B.K. Panigrahi, Retired Chief Engineer, Electrical was appointed as inquiry officer to cause enquiry into the charges framed against the petitioner in the disciplinary proceeding drawn up vide office order no.3394 dated 02.08.1999. The petitioner questioned appointment of B.K. Panigrahi on the ground that he was not an “authority” under the OSCMFL Regulation and, therefore, could not have been appointed as inquiry officer to conduct enquiry in view of the provision quoted above. 10. In Black’s Law Dictionary 7th Edn., “Authority” means the right or permission to act legally on another’s behalf; the power delegated by a principal to an agent e.g. authority to sign the contract. 11. In Merriam Webster’s Law Dictionary, “Authority” means a government agency or public office responsible for an area of regulation. Example: should apply for a permit to the permitting authority. 12. Farlex free Dictionary, states that ‘Authority’ permission, a right coupled with the power to do an act or order others to act. Often one person gives another authority to act, often one person gives another authority to act, as an employer to an employee, a principal to an agent, a corporation to its officers, or governmental empowerment to perform certain functions. 13. Often one person gives another authority to act, often one person gives another authority to act, as an employer to an employee, a principal to an agent, a corporation to its officers, or governmental empowerment to perform certain functions. 13. The word ‘authority’ is derived from the Latin word auctoritas, means intention, advice, opinion, influence or command which originate from an author, indicating that the authority originates from a master, leader or author, and essentially is imposed by a superior upon an inferior either by force of law. 14. In common parlance, the word authority is understood to be, power to exercise and perform certain duties or functions in accordance with law. “Authority” may vest in an individual or a person by itself or even as a delegate. It is the right to exercise power or permission to exercise power. In Union of India v. Alok Kumar, (2010) 5 SCC 349 , the meaning of “authority” has been discussed by the apex Court elaborately. 15. In Som Prakash Rekki v. Union of India, AIR 1981 SC 212 , the apex Court held that the dictionary meaning of the word ‘authority’ is clearly wide enough to include all bodies created by a statute on which powers are conferred to carry out governmental or quasi-governmental functions. 16. In Rajasthan State Electricity Board v. Mohan Lal, AIR 1967 SC 1857 , the apex Court held that the meaning of the word ‘authority’ given in Webster’s Third New International Dictionary, which can be applicable is ‘a public administrative agency or corporation having quasi-governmental power and authorized to administer a revenue-producing public enterprise. The dictionary meaning of the word ‘authority’ is clearly wide enough to include all bodies created by a statute on which powers are conferred to carry out government or quasi-governmental functions. 17. Similar question had come up for consideration by a Division Bench of this Court in Siba Kishore Pattnaik (supra) in which Regulation 10(2) of Paradeep Port Employees (Classification, Control and Appeal) Regulations, 1967 was under consideration and this Court considering the word “authority” as provided under Regulation 10(2) has interpreted the same in paragraph-4 of the said judgment, which is extracted below:- “The word ‘authority’ has not been defined in the Regulations. It is, however, relevant that the ‘appointing authority’, ‘disciplinary authority’ are defined in Regulation 2 (b) and 2 (d) of the Regulations respectively. It is, however, relevant that the ‘appointing authority’, ‘disciplinary authority’ are defined in Regulation 2 (b) and 2 (d) of the Regulations respectively. ‘Authority’, in our view means a person deriving power from office or character or prestige. It means a person or body exercising a power or having a legal right to command and be obeyed. The meaning ascribed to the word in the Webster’s Universal Dictionary is ‘person or body of persons possessing authority’ having right to govern, direct, control affairs, make laws etc. Authority is the power, the legal right to command and to enforce obedience. A person who is relied upon, by reasons of his special knowledge, experience, study, to give trustworthy testimony or a weighty and credible opinion on particular facts and events is an ‘authority’. Authority is the power conferred by law to do something backed by an implied threat of some legal sanction, if the exercise of the power is impeded. If the interpretation given to the word by the Port Authorities is accepted, the use of the expression ‘person’ would have been sufficient. The use of the expression ‘authority’ cannot be said to be purposeless. It is not in dispute and is accepted that the disciplinary authority cannot be any person other than an official of the Paradeep Port Trust. Therefore, in our considered opinion, it is not open to the Paradeep Port authorities to appoint any person other than any of its functionaries as the Inquiry Officer. In view of the analysis made by us, the guidelines indicated by the Ministry of personnel, Public Grievances and Pensions are of no consequences.” 18. Considering the meaning of “authority” as discussed above, this Court is of the considered view that use of expression “authority” cannot be said to be a purposeless, as the disciplinary authority cannot be a person other than the official of OSCMFL. Therefore, it is not open to the OSCMFL to appoint any person other than any of its functionary as the inquiry officer. The judgment of this Court mentioned supra has neither been challenged nor set aside by the higher forum, as is stated by learned counsel for the parties. Therefore, the principles laid down in the said judgment still hold good and are governing the field. The judgment of this Court mentioned supra has neither been challenged nor set aside by the higher forum, as is stated by learned counsel for the parties. Therefore, the principles laid down in the said judgment still hold good and are governing the field. Consequentially, the appointment of B.K. Panigrahi, Retired Chief Engineer, Electrical as inquiry officer, who is an outsider to the Federation, cannot sustain in the eye of law. 19. In view of the analysis made in the foregoing paragraphs, if the appointment of the inquiry officer is bad in law, any consequential action taken on its report cannot sustain. As a result, the order dated 05.05.2000 (Annexure-23) passed by the disciplinary authority and consequential order of confirmation made by the learned Member, Co-operative Tribunal, Orissa vide Annexure-27 dated 18.09.2002 in Service Dispute Case No. 11 of 2000, are hereby quashed. It is open to the OSCMFL to appoint an inquiry officer in accordance its Regulation and proceed with the matter afresh from that stage. 20. The writ petition is allowed to the extent indicated above. No order as to cost.