Judgment

Dr. B.R.Sarangi, J.

The petitioner while working as a Senior Accountant under Orissa Mining Corporation was subjected to disciplinary proceeding and as a consequence thereof he has been dismissed from service vide order dated 20.10.2008, Annexure-33. Therefore, the petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking the following relief:

“Issue a Rule Nisi calling upon the opposite parties to show cause as to why the order of suspension under Annexure-1 and the initiation of the proceedings under Annexure-2 and 13 and the Enquiry report under Annexure-27 shall not be quashed and if the opposite parties fail to show cause or show insufficient cause this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to issue a writ in nature of mandamus quashing Annexures-1, 2, 13 and 27 and further issue any other writ and/or writs, order and/or orders, direction and/or directions as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper; And declare/hold that the impugned order of suspension, the impugned proceedings, the perverse enquiry report submitted pursuant thereto and the impugned order as at Annexure-33 are ab-initio void, nonest and illegal and quash the same with concurrent award of exemplary costs.

2. The short facts of the case in hand are that the petitioner joined service as a Lower Division Clerk in Orissa Mining Corporation Ltd. on 16.07.1974 but due to restructuring of the cadre, be became a Junior Accountant w.e.f. 16.01.1980 He was brought over to work in the CPF Trust Board on 03.09.1983. While he was so continuing, he was promoted to the post of Senior Accountant on 22.10.1984. He was placed under suspension on 25.06.1990 vide order Annexure-1. The petitioner was issued with a charge-sheet vide Annexure-2 on 14.06.1991 on the allegation that he had contravened the CPF Rules causing substantial pecuniary loss to the CPF and had brought disrupts to the trust fund, neglected his duty grossly and had acted in a most irresponsible manner causing heavy financial loss.

The petitioner requested the authorities vide letters dated 6.7.1991 and 15.7.1991 for supply of the relevant audit report and CPF bye-laws in order to facilitate him to submit his reply. But the authorities directed to him to peruse the relevant records vide letter dated 26/27.07.1991. On receipt of the same, the petitioner again requested the authorities vide letter dated 02.08.1991 for supply of copies of the audit report but the same was not supplied to him. Thereafter vide order dated 20.08.1991, opposite party no.4 was appointed as Inquiring Officer by the Chairman-cum-Managing Director of the OMC. Opposite party no.4, the I.O., directed the petitioner to appear before him for inquiry pursuant to letter dated 26.09.1991 vide Annexure-10. In compliance thereof, the petitioner appeared before the I.O. and submitted his preliminary show-cause reply. When the matter stood thus, for the selfsame allegation, the Chairman-cum-Managing Director, who was nonetheless the appellate authority as well as the revisional authority, issued another charge-sheet under Rule-14 of the OMC CCA Rules, 1976 to the petitioner. The petitioner again requested for supply of the documents, but he was denied even the extracts of the said documents by the authorities.

3. After inquiry, the I.O. submitted his report on 6.11.1993. Thereafter, the Chairman-cum-Managing Director on 6.11.1993 vide Annexure-27 enclosing a copy of the inquiry report called upon the petitioner to show cause within seven days as to why major punishment of dismissal from service would not be inflicted on him. In compliance with the same, the petitioner submitted his reply on 26.11.1993 vide Annexure-28, but no action was taken in the matter and the matter remained pending for more than five years. However, on 10.12.1998, the petitioner asked for supply of the documents which he wanted to take, but he was only been permitted to peruse the same vide letter dated 12.01.199, Annexure-19. Thereafter the petitioner submitted an application to