JUDGMENT :

D.P. CHOUDHURY, J.

Challenge has been made to the order dated 12.01.2015 passed by the learned Odisha Administrative Tribunal, Bhubaneswar (hereinafter called “the Tribunal”) in O.A. No.2156 of 2013 by allowing the Original Application filed by opp. Party no.1 before the Tribunal.

FACTS :

2. The factual matrix leading to the case of the petitioner is that opposite party No.1 was initially appointed as Sub-Deputy Collector and later on he was promoted to O.A.S. Class-I and finally retired from Government Service on 29.02.2000. Prior to his superannuation two Vigilance cases were registered against him vide Berhampur Vigilance P. S. Case Nos.2 and 4 dated 10.01.1998 and in both the cases charge sheet were filed against the opposite party No.1 on 30.06.2004 and 31.12.1999 respectively. In both the cases cognizance of the offences have been taken by the concerned Court. Due to such Vigilance cases the concerned Administrative Department started the disciplinary proceeding against the opposite party No.1. In the departmental proceeding, the opposite party No.1 was awarded punishment against which he preferred O.A. No.177 of 2011, but the Tribunal was pleased to quash the punishment order dated 17.01.2011 vide their order dated 08.08.2013. Since the order of the Tribunal was not implemented by the petitioner, the opposite party No.1 filed O.A. No.2156 of 2013 for a direction to disburse the final pension along with the retiral benefits like DCRG, un-utilized leave salary and regular pension. The learned Tribunal allowed the relief sought for by the opposite party No.1. Against such order of the Tribunal the present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner alleging that said order of the Tribunal is illegal and bad in law.

SUBMISSIONS

3. It is submitted by learned Addl. Government Advocate for the petitioner that the learned Tribunal failed to appreciate that charge sheet has been filed against the opposite party No.1 in Berhampur Vigilance P. S. Case Nos.2 and 4 of 1998 and disciplinary proceeding has been initiated against him on 07.02.2000, i.e., prior to retirement of opposite party No.1, for which the learned Tribunal ought to have held that the opposite party No.1 has no ground to seek relief against the petitioner before the Tribunal. It is also contended that that the learned Tribunal has erred in law by not following the provisions of Rules 66(1) of the Odisha Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1992(hereinafter called “the Rules”) and Rules 4 of the Odisha Civil Services (Commutation of Pension Rules, 1992) because the Rules clearly prohibit the sanction of pensionary benefits during pendency of vigilance case and disciplinary proceeding. Learned Tribunal should have taken cognizance of the fact that the petitioner has already challenged the order of the Tribunal passed in O.A. No.177 of 2011 before this Court vide W.P.(C) No.19216 of 2014. He further submits that the Tribunal has failed to appreciate the law that no gratuity shall be paid to the Government servant until conclusion of departmental proceeding or judicial proceeding and issue of final orders but on the other hand illegally passed the order allowing gratuity to the opposite party No.1. Hence it is submitted that the order of the Tribunal is wrong and bad in law for which same should be set aside and action of the petitioner should be affirmed.

POINT FOR DETERMINATION

(i) Whether order of the Tribunal is illegal and bad in law?

DISCUSSION

4. It is admitted fact that opposite party No.1 retired from the post of Joint Commissioner, Settlement and Consolidation, Berhampur and he superannuated on 29.02.2000.It is also admitted fact that the applicant was placed under suspension basing on the Berhampur Vigilance P.S. Case Nos.2 & 4 of 1998. It is undisputed fact that the opposite party No.1 has challenged the order of suspension before the Tribunal vide O.A. No.2245 of 1999 and that suspension order was also quashed. It is also admitted fact that the opposite par