JUDGMENT :

D.P. Choudhury, J.

Challenge has been made to the order passed by the learned Appeal Committee in imposing stoppage of four increments, recovery of shortage amount and for not passing any order on period of suspension.

FACTS

2. The unshorn details of the case leading to this writ petition is that on 2.1.1986 the petitioner entered into service as Copyist. Thereafter in 1994 he was posted as Nazir in the establishment of SDJM, Nuapada. He applied for leave from 24.4.2004 to 30.4.2004. In his place one Motiram Jagat, Junior Clerk was kept in-charge of Nazir in the establishment of Nuapada. It is alleged inter alia that on 26.4.2004 Shri Justice P.K. Tripathy, the then Judge of this Court made a surprise visit to Nuapada. On verification of accounts His Lordship found shortage of cash of Rs.2831.40 p. in the Nizarat. But immediately the Junior Clerk in-charge arranged the shortage money and made up the deficit amount. However, on the direction of His Lordship, an enquiry was started against the present petitioner. Contemplating Departmental Proceeding the petitioner was placed under suspension on 18.7.2004. When the explanation was called for from the petitioner to the charges, he submitted same solely stating that he was not in-charge of the Nazir at the relevant time. After due enquiry the punishment was inflicted on 5.3.2005 by removing the petitioner from service. So, the petitioner filed appeal on 17.3.2005 before this Court. After hearing the petitioner the Appeal Committee of this Court set aside the order of removal from service and directed to reinstate the petitioner but substituted the punishment with the stoppage of four increments with cumulative effect and the petitioner was directed to make good the shortage amount. After the petitioner was reinstated, he made representation for payment of the salary during the period of suspension and the period he was kept out of service for no fault of his. That representation was rejected. Hence, the writ petition.

SUBMISSIONS

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the enquiry report prepared by the Enquiring Officer was not communicated to the petitioner although it is required by law to first communicate the same to the delinquent employee. It is further submitted that the disciplinary authority without giving any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner on the enquiry report, accepted the same to the extent of differing on the point of recommendation on punishment, although law requires that after considering the show cause of the petitioner along with enquiry report the disciplinary authority would give his final opinion. Learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon the decision in AIR 1991 SC 471, Union of India and others v. Mohd. Ramzan Khan, where it is held that the enquiry report would first be supplied to the delinquent to give him chance to rebut the finding of the Enquiring Officer and said decision has been repeatedly followed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in AIR 2011 SC 120, Punjab National Bank v. K.K. Verma and (2013) 7 SCC 251, S.P. Malhotra v. Punjab National Bank and others.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that Rule 15 (10) (i) (a) of the Orissa Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1962 (hereinafter called “the Rules, 1962”) clearly enshrines that the report of the Enquiring Officer must be communicated to the employee with notice of calling him to submit such representation within a period of fifteen days. Moreover, Rule 15 (10) (i) (b) of the Rules, 1962 directs that upon such representation the disciplinary authority has to furnish the delinquent servant a statement of his finding along with brief reasons for disagreement with the proposed punishment to be imposed and issue a second show cause notice before imposing major penalty. But in this case the disciplinary authority has not followed the entire procedure and inflicted punishment of removal from service. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitt