The main legal point established in the judgment is that penalties imposed must be prescribed under the law and should not be arbitrary or irrational.

JUDGMENT

Dr. B.R. Sarangi, J. - The petitioner, who is working as Assistant Project Director (Finance) under the District Rural Development Agency, Puri, has filed this writ application seeking to quash the order dated 15.09.2018 under Annexure-8, on the ground that the same has been passed in gross violation of the principle of natural justice as well as Rule-15 (10)(i)(a) and Rule 16 (b) of the Orissa Civil Service (Classification Control and Appeal) Rules, 1962.

2. The factual matrix of the case, in brief, is that the District Rural Development Agency (DRDA) is a Society registered under the Societies Registration Act, and is being financed by the State Government and Central Government. DRDA is visualized as a specialized and professional agency capable of managing the anti poverty programme of the Government and to watch over and ensure effective utilization of funds intended for anti poverty programme in different districts. DRDA in every district of the State functions under the administrative control of the Panchyati Raj & Drinking Water Department. Due to creation of posts of Assistant Project Director (Finance) in DRDA by the Government in Panchyati Raj Department in the year 1996, an advertisement was published for filling up of the said post under DRDA, Dhenkanal. Pursuant thereto, the petitioner applied for and he was duly selected and appointed by the order of the Collector & Chairman. Accordingly, he joined in his duty and while he was so continuing, one post of Assistant Project Director (Finance) fallen vacant under Puri DRDA. Thereby the petitioner made a representation before opposite party no.1 for his transfer to Puri DRDA under Regulation 15 of The Odisha District Rural Development Agency Employees (Recruitment and Conditions of Service) Regulation, 1989, with a condition that he will forgo his seniority since the post in question is a district cadre. Accordingly, vide order dated 06.11.2002, he was appointed as Assistant Project Director (Finance) in the DRDA Puri with a stipulation that in the cadre the seniority of the petitioner will be counted from the date of joining in the DRDA, Puri as Assistant Project Director (Finance). Pursuant to such order, he joined in the said post and during his continuance, the petitioner along with similarly situated persons approached this Court by filing W.P.(C) No.32335 of 2011 with a prayer to create promotional avenues for them and to grant higher scale of pay at par with Class-I (Junior Branch) of the State Government. But thereafter, he was transferred from Puri to Sambalpur DRDA in gross violation of the provisions contained in DRDA Service Regulation vide order dated 16.02.2015, which was challenged before this Court in W.P.(C) No. 2955 of 2015. After due adjudication, vide order dated 06.08.2015, the order of transfer dated 16.02.2015 was quashed, as the same was passed without complying the provisions contained in Rule-15 of the DRDA Regulation, 1989. Consequentially, the petitioner was allowed to continue where he was posted earlier, i.e. at Puri, vide order dated 01.10.2015.

2.1 While he was continuing at Sambalpur as Assistant Project Director (Finance), on 07.07.2015 one memorandum of charge was issued to him by the Collector, Puri, opposite party no.2 with regard to gross negligence in Government duty, misappropriation of government money, disregard to the order of the higher authority and for violation of the conduct rules. On receipt of such memorandum, the petitioner submitted his reply denying all the charges, since same are vague and without any basis. Again, on self-same ground another additional memorandum of charge was issued to the petitioner on 24.08.2015, to which the petitioner also filed his reply denying all the charges. But from the date of joining on 09.12.2015 at Puri, he was placed under suspension by opposite party no.2 on the ground of serious financial irregularities committed by the petitioner without any audit report.

2.2 Consequent u