JUDGMENT

S.C. PARIJA, J. — The moot question which arises for consideration in the present writ petition, is that when the Inquiring Officer, during the course of disciplinary proceeding comes to a conclusion that all the charges alleging misconduct against a Government official are not proved then can the Disci¬plinary Authority differ from that and give a contrary finding without affording an opportunity of hearing to the delinquent officer.

2. The brief facts of the case is that while the petition¬er was working as Soil Conservation Officer, Puri, he was trans¬ferred and his services were placed under Orissa State Cashew Development Corporation for posting as General Manager (Techni¬cal). Subsequently, vide Office Order dated 12.06.1998, the peti¬tioner was posted as Principal, Soil Conservation Training Insti¬tute, Koraput. On the same date i.e., 12.06.1998 the Commission¬er-cum-Secretary to Government, Agriculture Department issued Office Order under Rule 12 (1) (a) of the Orissa Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1962 (CCA Rules for short) placing the petitioner under suspension with immediate effect in contemplation of disciplinary proceeding.

3. The petitioner was subsequently issued with a memo of charges dated 27.07.1998 by the Commissioner-cum-Secretary to Government, Agriculture Department along with Statement of Imputation basing on which action was proposed to be taken against the petitioner. The petitioner was asked to submit his written statement of defence within the stipulated period. The petitioner submitted his written statement of defence denying the charges. The State Government in the Agriculture Department, on considering the written statement of defence submitted by the petitioner, decided to refer the disciplinary proceeding against the petitioner to the “Commissioner for Departmental Inquiries”, General Administration Department, for detailed inquiry. Accord¬ingly, the Commissioner for Departmental Inquiries was appointed as the Inquiring Officer vide Office Order dated 27.05.1999, as per the provisions of Rule 15(4) of the CCA Rules, for the pur¬pose of enquiring into the charges framed against the delinquent officer and submitting his detailed report containing his find¬ings to the State Government in the Agriculture Department for necessary action.

4. Pursuant to the appointment of Commissioner for Depart¬mental Inquiries as Inquiring Officer, the enquiry was initiated against the petitioner vide CDI Case No.17 of 1999 on the charges that the petitioner during his incumbency as Soil Conservation Officer, Puri, committed acts of omissions and commissions for which following charges were framed against him.

(i) Violation of prescribed procedure of recruitment;

(ii) Violation of ORV Act/Rules;

(iii) Misuse of Official Powers;

(iv) Unauthorized Government transactions;

(v) Violation of Rehabilitation Assistance Rules;

5. The Inquiring Officer after several sittings and on consideration of materials on record, including oral and documen¬tary evidence, came to the following conclusions;

“However, in view of the facts analytically discussed, taking into all possible and available circumstantial evidence, it has been conclusively proved that there is no preponderance of doubt and ambiguity that the prosecution has failed to substanti¬ate the charges. In the result, it is recommended that the D.O. may be summarily exonerated of the charges that the period of suspension may be treated as duty.”

6. On submission of the enquiry report by the Inquiring Officer recommending for exonerating the petitioner from all the charges and also recommending to treat the period of suspension as on duty, the Disciplinary Authority considered the said enquiry report and decided to differ from the said findings of the Inquiring Officer as the same were found to be based on the pleas/statements of delinquent and without proper application of mind and to finalise the disciplinary proceeding against the peti