JUDGMENT

I. MAHANTY, J. : The petitioner-Sridhar Pradhan has sought to challenge an order dated 25.6.1999 (Annexure-9) passed by the Orissa Administrative Tribunal, Bhubaneswar, rejecting the petitioner’s original application No.998 of 1993, wherein the petitioner had sought to challenge an order of reversion passed by the Secretary, Co-operation, Government of Orissa (O.P.1) pur¬portedly being contrary to Rule 29 of the OCS (C.C.A.) Rules, 1962.

2. From the pleadings of the case it appears that the petitioner entered into Government service under the Government of Orissa and was appointed by the Deputy Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Berhampur (O.P.3) as a Lower Division Clerk with effect from 25.10.1968. Thereafter the petitioner was promoted to the post of upper Division Clerk on 1.10.1970 and while contain¬ing as such, was deputed as Accountant to Soura L.A.M.P.C.S. at Chandigarh. It appears that for the period 1978-79 and 1979-80 accounts of the said society was audited and based on the audit report, a departmental proceeding was initiated against the petitioner on 22.5.1982 on various charges, namely, disobedience of orders, negligence in duty, non-maintenance of Books of Ac¬count with malafide intention, misappropriation of Society funds, misutilisation of Society funds unauthorisedly and misconduct.

3. The A.R.C.S., Aska was appointed as Enquiry Officer and pursuant to notices issued, the petitioner submitted his show cause on 13.8.1982. The Enquiry Officer concluded the inquiry on 3.1.1983 and held the petitioner guilty of the charges.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that, pending completion of the disciplinary proceeding, two separate Criminal proceedings were drawn against the petitioner on the self-same charges, i.e., for criminal breach of trust and falsification of accounts, in respect of property and documents of Soura L.A.M.P.S. Ltd., Chandragiri. The criminal proceedings against the petitioner were registered as G.R. Case Nos.107 of 1982 and 123 of 1983 in the Courts of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Digapahandi and R. Udayagiri respectively.

It is asserted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that, while the criminal proceedings were pending against him, without conducting and due inquiry and giving any adequate oppor¬tunity to the petitioner to defend himself, the disciplinary proceeding was concluded, only on the basis of the show cause reply submitted by the petitioner.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that, the petitioner on receipt of notice dated 20.1.1984, made a representation for supply of statement of the witnesses, in order to enable him to file show cause against purported disciplinary action. It is alleged that the Enquiry Officer had concluded inquiry without even summoning the petitioner and thereby arrived at an ex-parte decision holding the petitioner guilty of charges, merely by referring to the show cause reply of the petitioner to the charge sheet. No opportunity whatsoever was given to the petitioner to explain each of the charges and therefore, it is contended that the finding on the charges arrived by the Enquiry Officer is perverse.

6. It is further submitted that on receipt of the notice from opposite party No.3 (the Deputy Registrar), the petitioner came to know about the proposed action of dismissal and also learnt that the same was based upon the charges which were alleg¬edly found to be proved by the Enquiry Officer, with regard to “misappropriation of Society funds” as would be evident from the notice dated 20.1.1984 under Annexure-4. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that even though the petitioner filed his show case dated 7.2.1984 and simultaneously requested for supply of the deposition of the witnesses, non-supply of the same to him, amounts to complete violation of principles of natural justice. On 26.5.1984, opposite party No.3 passed the impugned order of dismissal under Annexure-5 without providing the