Research › Search › Judgment

Orissa High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 851 (ORI)

Union of India v. Pramod Ku. Nath

2017-08-09

SANJU PANDA, SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD

body2017
JUDGMENT : S. N. Prasad, J. 1. This writ petition is under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India wherein the order dated 10.03.2016 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Cuttack Bench, Cuttack in O.A. No 260/00305 of 2014 has been assailed by the Union of India represented through Comptroller and Auditor General of India wherein the Tribunal while quashing the charge-sheet issued against the applicant-opposite party no.1 directed the authorities to disburse all consequential benefit retrospectively. 2. Brief facts of the case is that the applicant who is working as Assistant Audit Officer after being promoted to the said post vide order dated 2.1.2007 by the order issued in this regard by the Principal Accountant General, Odisha, while working, memorandum of charge was issued under the signature of Accountant General (G and SSA), Bhubaneswar, opposite party-3, wherein the charge of irregularities in the discharge of government service has been alleged. The authorities have appointed an Enquiring Officer to enquire into the charges framed against him. The petitioner has made an objection regarding the appointment of Mr. Dipak Prabhu (IA & AS), Deputy Accountant General on the ground that he was directly connected with the issue in question, accordingly an office order was issued on 10th April, 2013 appointing another Officer namely C. Veeraraghavan, I.A. & A.S., Deputy Accountant General as the enquiry officer to enquire into the charges. But C. Veeraraghavan, subsequently has made a request to relieve from responsibilities citing work pressure and accordingly the authorities has issued an order on 16.09.2013 replacing him with one Sri Santanu Ku. Das, District and Sessions Judge (Retired) as Inquiring Authority to enquire into the charges leveled against him. The new Enquiring Officer has issued a communication on 19.09.2013 communicating the petitioner to participate in the de novo enquiry which the applicant has objected but the authorities have taken no decision on the representation. Finally, the respondent no.3 has passed an order on 4.10.2013 rejecting the representation of the petitioner for quashing the appointment order of the enquiring authority namely Santanu Ku. Das against which the applicant has filed an appeal before opposite party no.1, the same has been dismissed vide order dated 26.03.2014. The Inquiring Authority has again issued a communication to the applicant on 24.04.2014 asking him to appear in the enquiry. 3. Das against which the applicant has filed an appeal before opposite party no.1, the same has been dismissed vide order dated 26.03.2014. The Inquiring Authority has again issued a communication to the applicant on 24.04.2014 asking him to appear in the enquiry. 3. The applicant has approached to the Tribunal at this juncture praying therein to quash the charge-sheet issued under memorandum of charge dated 21.11.2012, to quash the order dated 26.3.2014, 24.4.2014 and to direct the authorities to grant the applicant all consequential benefit which he is entitled but deprived on account of issuance of charge-sheet. The applicant has taken a ground before the Tribunal that the authorities who has issued the charge-sheet i.e., the opposite party no.3 being the Accountant General (General & Social Sector Audit), has got no jurisdiction to issue memorandum of charge since he is not the appointing authority of the applicant rather the Principal Accountant General is the appointing authority since he has been granted promotion as Assistant Audit Officer vide order dated 29.12.2006 by the decision of the Principal Accountant General (Civil Audit), Odisha, Bhubaneswar and as such he is only competent to issue memorandum of charge and to take any disciplinary action against him but the opposite party no.3, who being lower in hierarchy, has issued memorandum of charge, as such the same is without jurisdiction, hence the same needs to be quashed. 4. Learned counsel for the applicant has relied upon the disposition of I.A. & A.S. Officer as on 1.9.2013 in order to demonstrate the hierarchy of the post and to show that the post of Accountant General (in short ‘A.G.’) is coming under Senior Administrative Grade in Pay Band-4 while the post of Principal Accountant General is under H.A.G. pay band which is higher in rank in comparison to the post of A.G. He further submits that merely on account of the fact that the Gazette of India Notification dated 20.04.2012 which shows the appointing authority of all Group-B post in Pay Band-3 conferring power upon the Heads of Department in the rank of the Principal Accountant General or A.G. or Officer of the equivalent rank who has been held to be disciplinary authority since the word ‘or’ is there in all the three posts conferring power of appointing or the disciplinary authority that does not mean that the appointing authority of the applicant would the Accountant General. He submits that the A.G. cannot be said to be his appointing authority since admittedly he has been granted promotion as Assistant Audit Officer by the order of the Principal Accountant General. 5. The Tribunal has issued notice to the office of the Comptroller and Auditor General on their appearance before it, the plea has been taken that on the date, the applicant has been granted promotion as Assistant Audit Officer the office was of the Principal Accountant General at Bhubaneswar but subsequently it has been downgraded to the post of Accountant General (Civil Audit) and on account of downgrading of post one Amar Patnaik A.G. (G & SSA) has been posted on account of retirement of Sri S.K. Mishra w.e.f. 30.04.2011 and as such Sri Amar Patnaik being the head of the department of the office of the A.G., Odisha would be said to be the appointing authority as also the disciplinary authority, who has issued the memorandum of charge, hence the same cannot be said to be without jurisdiction. 6. The respondents have taken help of the Gazette Notification dated 20.04.2012 demonstrating the fact that it is only the Heads of the Department who will be said to be appointing or the disciplinary authority, the H.O.D. can be the Principal Accountant General or A.G., since at the time when memorandum of charge has been issued due to downgrading of the office of the A.G., Odisha, the H.O.D. was the A.G. and as such in the capacity of the A.G. the decision of the departmental proceeding has been taken as such there is no illegality so far as jurisdiction to initiate departmental proceeding is concerned. 7. The Tribunal, after taking into consideration the rival submission of the parties, has passed an order holding therein that since the applicant has been granted promotion by the order of the Principal Accountant General and as such on the simple principle that the disciplinary authority can only be an appointing authority and since the order of promotion has been issued by the Principal Accountant General, hence the power to initiate a departmental proceeding or to take any disciplinary action is vested with the Principal Accountant General, hence quashed the charge on the ground of jurisdiction directed to release all consequential benefit retrospectively. The order passed by the Tribunal is before us for its judicial scrutiny. 8. The order passed by the Tribunal is before us for its judicial scrutiny. 8. Learned counsel appearing for the applicant has produced a document to show that at the time when the memorandum of charge has been issued, the post was occupied by one Ms. Gargi Kaul, in the capacity of Principal Accountant General, on the basis of this document the efforts has been made to impress upon the Court that the office of the Accountant General was at the relevant time, occupied by the incumbent holding the post of Principal Accountant General and as such she being the H.O.D. would be said to be appointing or the disciplinary authority. 9. Learned senior counsel appearing for the Comptroller and Auditor General in response, has submitted that the memorandum dated 6.6.2012 showing that Ms. Gargi Kaul was holding the post of Principal Accountant General (A & E) is not in dispute but he submits that the applicant at the relevant time was working under the Civil Audit wing and when he was granted promotion as Assistant Audit Officer, the incumbent was at the rank of the Principal Accountant General (Civil Audit), but subsequently the office was occupied by Accountant General (Civil Audit) who has become the H.O.D. and in that capacity he would be said to be the appointing or the disciplinary authority. He submits that the nomenclature of the post is not material to assess regarding the status of the office, rather it is the incumbency which will decide the status of office i.e. to see if the office is being headed by the Officer in the rank of the Accountant General (Civil Audit), he or she in the capacity of the H.O.D. would become the appointing or disciplinary authority and if the office is being headed by the Officer in the rank of Principal Accountant General, he would be said to be the H.O.D. and he become the appointing or disciplinary authority. He further submits that the applicant cannot be said to be an employee working under the Principal Accountant General (A & E) rather he is an employee working under the Civil Audit wing. He tries to demonstrate from the document pertaining to the restructuring of the Department wherein it has been stated that the state accounts and audit offices are headed by Accountants General or Principal Accountants General. He tries to demonstrate from the document pertaining to the restructuring of the Department wherein it has been stated that the state accounts and audit offices are headed by Accountants General or Principal Accountants General. They are functionally equivalent, only the designation varies, major States have three Principal Accountants General or Accountants General each heading Accounts and Entitlement (i.e., compiling state accounts, maintaining pension accounts, loan accounts, etc), General and Social Sector Audit or Economic and Revenue Sector Audit. For ready reference the literature pertaining to restructuring of the office of the Principal Accountants General are being referred herein below:- “The service can be divided into officers looking after accounting and audit issues pertaining to the Union government and the State governments, and those manning the Department’s Headquarters. The state accounts and audit offices are headed by Accountants General or Principal Accountants General. They are functionally equivalent, only the designation vary. Major States have three Principal Accountants General (PAsG) or Accountants General (AsG) each heading Accounts and Entitlement (i.e., compiling state accounts, maintaining pension accounts, loan accounts, etc), General and Social Sector Audit (GSSA) or Economic and Revenue Sector Audit (ERSA).” He further tries to demonstrate from the office order dated 22.3.2012 which relates to restructuring of the office of the A.G (Civil Audit), Odisha, A.G. (Commercial, Works and Receipt Audit), Odisha and Senior Deputy Accountant General (Local Bodies Audit & Accounts), Odisha. He submits on the strength of the office order that in the scheme of restructuring of audit arrangements of State Governments in the IA & AD it has been decided that office of the A.G. (Civil Audit), Odisha shall now be the Principal Auditor of Social and General Services Department of the Govt. of Odisha and henceforth be called as the office of the Accountant General (General & Social Sector Audit), Odisha. He tries to demonstrate that the applicant was granted promotion vide order dated 29.12.2006 by the order of Principal Accountant General (Civil Audit), Odisha but after restructuring of the audit arrangements of the State Governments in the IA & AD vide office order dated 22.03.2012, the Accountant General (G & SSA) who on earlier occasion known as A.G. (Civil Audit) has issued the order of promotion to the post of Assistant Audit Officer as would be evident from the order dated 29.12.2006. Learned Senior Counsel, on the strength of the documents, has tried to impress upon the Court that the applicant cannot derive any benefit on the basis of the letter dated 6.6.2012 claiming to be an employee working under the office of Principal Accountant General (A& E), Odisha, Bhubaneswar. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents available on record. 10. Before appreciating the fact finding of the Tribunal it would be relevant to have discussion of certain facts related to this case. (i) The applicant was promoted vide order dated 29.12.2006 by the order of the Principal Accountant General (Civil Audit). The same is at page-66 to the writ petition, for ready reference the decision of the Principal Accountant General is being quoted herein below:- Office of the Principal Accountant General (Civil Audit), Orissa : Bhubaneswar OOC No.971 Dt. 29.12.2006 Pr. Accountant General (Civil Audit), Orissa, Bhubaneswar has been pleased to promote the following Section Officers to officiate as Assistant Audit Officer in the scale of pay of Rs.7450-225-11500/- with effect from 02.01.2007 (01.01.2007 being holiday) or the date of taking over charge, whichever is later, at their present place of posting. Sl. No. Name of the Official(S/Shri) Present place of posting 1. Rajkishore Mohapatra ABA 2. Rudra Prasanna Rath Computer Cell 3. Bibhupada Tripathy OAD 4. Shibanarayan Mishra CASS/CAP 5. Pramod Kumar Nath ABA (ICM Review) 6. Pramod Kumar Adhikari OAD (Review) 7. Biliyam Baba O/o A.G.(CW&RA) 8. Siva Sankar Prasad OAD 9. Rohit Kawa Computer Cell 10. Nityananda Lenka O/oSr.DAG(WA&P),Puri 11. Purna Chandra Das-I OAD (Review) 12. Bata Krushna Rath O/o A.G.(CW&RA) 13. Pratap Chandra Nayak OAD 14. Sadashiba Pani ABA (Review) 15. Ms. Snigdha Mohanty CASS/CAP 16. Dhiraj Debraj Sahu Welfare (CA) 17. Kapilash Pradhan O/o A.G. (CW&RA) 18. Rajedndra Kumar das OAD (Review) 19. Upendranath Das OAD 20. Biswajit Das OAD 21. Pratap Keshari Burma OAD 22. Purusottam Subudhi O/oSr.DAG(WA&P), Puri 23. Ramanarayan Roy ABA (Review) 24. Udayanath Patra O/o. A.G.(CW&RA) 25. Ratnakar Samal RAO-PPT, Paradeep The promotion to the Asst. Audit Officer cadre is subject to the final decision of the High Court/Supreme Court on the cases subjudice in the courts and without prejudice to the claims of their seniors. Pratap Keshari Burma OAD 22. Purusottam Subudhi O/oSr.DAG(WA&P), Puri 23. Ramanarayan Roy ABA (Review) 24. Udayanath Patra O/o. A.G.(CW&RA) 25. Ratnakar Samal RAO-PPT, Paradeep The promotion to the Asst. Audit Officer cadre is subject to the final decision of the High Court/Supreme Court on the cases subjudice in the courts and without prejudice to the claims of their seniors. (ii) The classified List of Group ‘A’ Officers has been annexed with the writ petition as Annexure-A/2 and from its perusal it is evident that there is disposition of IA & AS Officers as on 01.09.2013, for ready reference the same is being reproduced herein below:- DISPOSITION OF IA & AS OFFICERS AS ON 01-09-2013 Grade Pay Bands Scale of Pay(Rs.) On duty On Leave Etc. On Training On Deptn. Total Deputy Comptroller and Auditor General Apex Scale 80000/- (Fixed 5 - - 1 6 Additional Deputy Comptroller and Auditor General HAG +Scale 75500/-(annual increment @ 3%) – 80000/- 6 - - - 6 Principal Accountant General HAG 67000/- (annual increment @ 3%)- 79000/- 63 3 - 27 93 Senior Administrative Grade PB-4 37400/-67000/- Grade Pay-10000/- 110 7 3 50 170 Selection Grade of Junior Administrative Grade PB-4 37400/-67000/-Grade Pay-8700/- 30 - - 12 42 Junior Administrative Grade PB-3 15600/-39100/-Grade Pay-7600/- 45 1 - 3 49 Senior Time Scale PB-3 15600/-391000/- Grade Pay-6600/- 196 6 - 6 208 Junior Time Scale PB-3 15600/-391000/- Grade Pay-5400/- 102 1 20 - 123 Total 557 18 23 99 697 It is evident from the disposition of the IA & AS Officers that the post starts from Junior Time Scale, Senior Time Scale, Junior Administrative Grade. These three posts are under Pay Band-3, starts from Selection Grade Junior Administrative Grade and Senior Administrative Grade, both these posts are under Pay Band-4, then starts Principal Accountant General, it is in the HAG pay scale in the HAG Pay Band with higher pay scales, then the pay scale at Pay Band-4 thereafter the post of Addl. Deputy Comptroller and Auditor General and Deputy Comptroller and Auditor General is there. It further transpires that the post of Principal Accountant General is having higher pay scale than that of the Senior Administrative Grade. It is not in dispute that the post of A.G. is coming under Senior Administrative Grade which is in the Scale of Pay of Rs.37400-67,000/- and thereafter the post of Principal Accountant General is there. It further transpires that the post of Principal Accountant General is having higher pay scale than that of the Senior Administrative Grade. It is not in dispute that the post of A.G. is coming under Senior Administrative Grade which is in the Scale of Pay of Rs.37400-67,000/- and thereafter the post of Principal Accountant General is there. It is, thus, evident that the post of Principal Accountant General is higher in hierarchy than the post of Senior Administrative Grade carrying the post of Accountant General. 11. Government of India has come out with a Notification through Ministry of Finance (Department of Expenditure) dated 20.04.2012, which has been issued in exercise of power conferred by sub-rule (2) of Rule 9, clause (b) of Sub-Rule(2) of rule 12(1) of Rule 24 read with Rule 34 of Central Civil Service (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965, the President after consultation with the Comptroller and Auditor General of India, hereby makes the following further amendments in the notification of the Government of India in the Ministry of Finance (Department of Expenditure) vide S.O. No.2815, dated the 13th September, 1988, wherein the authority competent to impose penalties and penalties which it may impose has been referred. 12. It is evident from the description of the disciplinary authority with respect to all Group ‘B’ post in Pay Band-3 is the H.O.D. which would be in the rank of Principal Accountant General or A.G. or Officer of the equivalent rank. It transpires that it is always the H.O.D. who would be the appointing authority or the disciplinary authority who would either be the Principal Accountant General or A.G. or Officer of equivalent rank. We have perused the description of the IA & AS and from its perusal, it is evident that IA & AS is an Indian Audit and Accounts Service free of control from any executive authority under the Comptroller and Auditor General of India. IA & AS is responsible for auditing the accounts of the Union and State Government’s and public sector organization for maintaining the accounts of the State Government. The service can be divided in two officers looking after accounting and audit issues pertaining to the Union Government and the State Government and those mining department, department’s headquarters. 13. The State accounts are headed by A.G. or Principal Accountant General. The service can be divided in two officers looking after accounting and audit issues pertaining to the Union Government and the State Government and those mining department, department’s headquarters. 13. The State accounts are headed by A.G. or Principal Accountant General. It is further evident that these two posts have been held to be functionally equivalent, only the designations vary. It further transpires that major States have three Principal Accountant General or A.G., each heading accounts and entitlement General and Social Sector Audit or Economic and Revenue Sector Audit. 14. It is not in dispute that it is always the appointing authority who will be the disciplinary authority to initiate departmental proceeding by issuing memorandum of charge upon the concerned employee, against whom the decision to initiate departmental proceeding is to be taken. 15. The sole dispute raised in this case is that the memorandum of charge which has been issued by one Sri Amar Patnaik, who at the time of issuance of memorandum of charge was holding the post of A.G. (Civil Audit) was not the competent authority, reason being that the private opposite party has been granted promotion as Assistant Audit Officer by the Officer in the rank of Principal Accountant General, the Tribunal after taking note of this fact has quashed the memorandum of charge. 16. There is no dispute about the fact that by virtue of notification issued on 20.04.2012, the H.O.D. in the rank of Principal Accountant General or A.G. or officer of the equivalent rank has been made the appointing authority and the authority to initiate departmental proceeding, for better appreciation, the relevant part of the notification dated 20.04.2012 which concerned with the private opposite party is being reproduced herein below:- 2. All field offices (including training institutions) Subordinate to the Comptroller and Auditor-General of India, other than Commercial Audit Wing in Civil Audit Offices. Description of post Appointing Authority Authority All Group B Posts in Pay Band-3, Grade Pay of Rs.5400, Pay Band-2, Grade Pay of Rs.5400, Rs.4800, Rs.4600 or corresponding thereof. Heads of Department in the rank of Principal Accountant Generalor Accountant General or Officer of equivalent rank. Heads of Department in the rank of Principal Accountant Generalor Accountant General of officer of equivalent rank. 2.(A) All Group posts in PB-2 with Grade Pay Rs.4200 or corresponding thereof Officer in the rank of Senior Deputy Accountant General or Officer of equivalent rank. Heads of Department in the rank of Principal Accountant Generalor Accountant General of officer of equivalent rank. 2.(A) All Group posts in PB-2 with Grade Pay Rs.4200 or corresponding thereof Officer in the rank of Senior Deputy Accountant General or Officer of equivalent rank. Officer in the rank of Senior Deputy Accountant General or Deputy Accountant General or Officer of equivalent rank. It is evident from the notification as quoted hereinabove, that it is the H.O.D. who would be the appointing or disciplinary authority. It may be in the rank of the Principal Accountant General or A.G. or officer of the equivalent rank. It is not in dispute that the private opposite party was working under the Civil Audit wing in the office of the A.G. 17. We have gathered from the Notification dated 20.04.2012 and literature pertaining to the nomenclature of the IA & AD as contained in Annexure-9 to the writ petition, the post of P.A.G or the A.G. are functionally equivalent, only the designations vary. The notification dated 20.04.2012 is also suggesting the fact that the status of office of the incumbency, if the office is being held by the Officer in the rank of Principal Accountant General, the office will be said to be the office of the Principal Accountant General in the capacity of the H.O.D and he will become the appointing or the disciplinary authority but if the incumbency is holding the post of A.G., the office will be said to be the office of the A.G. in the capacity of the H.O.D. It is also evident from the office order dated 22.03.2012 that the office of the A.G. (Civil Audit) has been restructured and re-designated in the capacity of the Principal Auditor of Social and General Services Department of the Govt. of Odisha and henceforth has been directed to call as office of A.G. ( G & SSA). 18. of Odisha and henceforth has been directed to call as office of A.G. ( G & SSA). 18. From these documents, it is evident that the material thing is to see as to who is holding the post in the capacity of H.O.D. Admittedly on 29.12.2006 the office at Bhubaneswar in the State of Odisha was being headed by the Officer in the rank of Principal Accountant General (Civil Audit), Odisha to which the private opposite party belong and accordingly he has been granted promotion in the capacity of Assistant Audit Officer as would be evident from the list contained therein, wherein his name appears at Sl. No.5 i.e. Pramod Kumar Nath. After restructuring of the department vide order dated 22.03.2012, the office of the Civil Audit after its re-designation known as General & Social Sector Audit henceforth being headed by Accountant General and on the basis of that conferment of power on re-designation after 22.03.2012 from the office of the A.G.(Civil Audit) to the office of the A.G. (G & SSA), the other incumbents have been granted promotion by the A.G. (G & SSA), Odisha vide order dated 28.03.2013 as Assistant Audit Officer. 19. The office order dated 29.12.2006, the day when the private opposite party was granted promotion, was at the time the office headed by the Principal Accountant General (Civil Audit), Odisha but after its restructuring w.e.f. the order dated 22.03.2012, the Office was being headed by Accountant General (G & SSA), Odisha in the capacity of H.O.D. Meaning thereby, the status of office depends upon its incumbency who is working in the capacity of H.O.D., it may be Principal Accountant General or it may be A.G. and after 22.03.2012 the office was directed to be headed by the officer in the rank of A.G. (G & SSA), Odisha on earlier occasion known as office of the A.G. (Civil Audit). 20. So far as the documents related to the incumbency of Ms. 20. So far as the documents related to the incumbency of Ms. Gargi Kaul, who admittedly at that time was holding the post of Principal Accountant General (A & E) and we, on the basis of the documents related to the order of promotion issued in favour of the applicant on 29.12.2006, are of the view that the private opposite party is not an employee working under the office of the Principal Accountant General (A & E) rather he was working on the day when he was granted promotion i.e. on 29.12.2006 was under the office of the Principal Accountant General (Civil Audit), Odisha and as such we are of the view that the documents produced by the private opposite party with respect to functioning of Ms. Gargi Kaul, as Principal Accountant General (A & E) will be said to be the appointing authority is not to be accepted and accordingly we are not accepting it, for the reason that when the private opposite party is working under Civil Audit wing, the authority who is the head of the Civil Audit wing would be said to be the appointing authority not the authority heading the other wing i.e. A & E. 21. So far as the jurisdiction of Mr. Amar Pattnaik is concerned, he was holding the post of A.G.(Civil Audit), Odisha in the capacity of the H.O.D. against a downgraded post and as such in view of the functioning of the post designated as Principal Accountant General or A.G. since the same are equivalent and he was heading the office of Civil Audit wing in the capacity of H.O.D., hence his jurisdiction cannot be questioned as because even as per the office order dated 22.03.2012, it is evident that the office prior to issuance of the said order was being headed by the A.G. (Civil Audit), Odisha and after its restructuring, merging the office of the A.G. (Works & Receipt), Odisha and Senior Deputy Accountant General (Local Bodies, Audit & Accounts), Odisha has been decided to be called as the office of the A.G. (G & SSA), Odisha by merging the wing of Civil Audit, Commercial, Work and Receipt, Local Bodies Audit & Accounts and the officer who will head all the three wings has been designated as the office of the A.G. (G & SSA), Odisha. This also goes to suggest that as on 1.8.2011, there was an office in the name of A.G. (Civil Audit) who was heading as the H.O.D. 22. In view of these documents, this Court has come to conclusion that the status of office depends upon its incumbency who has been directed to work as H.O.D. he may be in the rank of Principal Accountant General or A.G. We, also gathered from these documents that at the time when the private opposite party has got his promotion, the H.O.D. during the relevant time was Principal Accountant General (Civil Audit) but at the time when the memorandum of charge was issued the office was being headed by the officer in the rank of A.G. (Civil Audit) and as such he in the capacity of H.O.D. has become the appointing authority of all such officers who have been promoted on earlier occasion by the order of the Principal Accountant General (Civil Audit) as because after the decision of the competent authority, the post of Principal Accountant General was no more in existence who were in the capacity of H.O.D. rather it has become A.G. (Civil Audit) to function in the capacity of H.O.D. office of the A.G., Odisha. 23. We have gathered from the order passed by the Tribunal by going through the order of promotion granted in favour of the private opposite party by the Principal Accountant General (Civil Audit) but the Tribunal fails to appreciate the fact that in the meanwhile i.e. in between the order granting promotion and the date of issuance of memorandum of charge, the nomenclature of the office has changed and i.e. in pursuance of the notification dated 20.04.2012 which speaks about the H.O.D. in the rank of Principal Accountant General or A.G. or officer in the equivalent rank. 24. The Tribunal while disposing of the original application ought to have taken into consideration the subsequent development as has been discussed hereinabove before coming to the conclusion regarding jurisdiction of the A.G. (Civil Audit). We, on the basis of discussion made above, are of the view that the Tribunal ought to have taken into consideration the functioning of the officer in the capacity of H.O.D. and not in the capacity of the Principal Accountant General or A.G. 25. We, on the basis of discussion made above, are of the view that the Tribunal ought to have taken into consideration the functioning of the officer in the capacity of H.O.D. and not in the capacity of the Principal Accountant General or A.G. 25. In that view of the matter, we are not in agreement with the finding given by the Tribunal and as such the order passed by the Tribunal is not sustainable in the eye of law, in the result the same is set aside. In consequence thereof, the competent authority is directed to conclude the departmental proceeding within a period of three months from the date of receipt of copy of this order. It goes without saying that while proceeding with the disciplinary enquiry, the authority will provide reasonable opportunity of being heard to the delinquent employee. It is made clear that the competent authority will not be prejudiced in any way while passing the final order. With this observation and direction, the writ petition is disposed of. Sanju Panda, I agree