JUDGMENT :

SASHIKANTA MISHRA, J.

1. The Petitioner, while working as Sub-Inspector of Police in Lathikata Police Station of Sundargarh District was involved in a criminal case (Vigilance) registered against him by the O.I.C. Vigilance P.S. Sambalpur on 28th March, 2009 on the allegation that he had demanded and accepted bribe of Rs. 6000/- from the owner of a Dumper for releasing it as also the driver of the said Dumper. A Disciplinary Proceeding bearing No. 2 dated 4th June, 2009 was initiated against him on the self-same charges by the S.P. Rourkela. According to the Petitioner the relevant documents were not supplied to him for his defence, but an Inquiry Officer was appointed to conduct the inquiry. In the mean time the Vigilance Case ended with submission of Final Report on 10th September, 2009 because of insufficient evidence which was also accepted by the concerned Court. Despite submission of the Final Report in the Vigilance case, the inquiry was conducted. After closure of evidence, the inquiry report was submitted on 31st December, 2017 by the Inquiry Officer holding the Petitioner not guilty of the charges. The disciplinary authority i.e. the S.P. Rourkela (Opposite Party No. 3) issued second show-cause notice dated 22nd October, 2014 without serving the first show-cause notice on the Petitioner differing from the findings of the Inquiry Officer and proposing punishment of one ‘Black Mark’. Further, without waiting for submission of the reply to the second show-cause notice by the Petitioner, the Opposite Party No. 3 imposed punishment of one Black Mark and treated the period of suspension of the Petitioner as such.

The Petitioner preferred appeal before the Deputy Inspector General of Police (Western Range) (Opposite Party No. 2) which came to be rejected on 12th November, 2015. Thereafter, the Petitioner filed revision before the Director General and Inspector General of Police, Odisha (Opposite Party No. 1) on 23rd March, 2016. The Opposite Party No. 1 held that the Petitioner was deprived of reasonable opportunity to defend himself and, therefore, set aside the order passed by the Opposite Party Nos. 2 and 3 and restored the proceeding to the stage of first show-cause notice directing the disciplinary authority to conduct and conclude the proceeding from that stage within two months following due procedure and observing the principles of natural justice. The disciplinary authority (Opposite Party No. 3) issued first show-cause notice stating that he did not agree with the findings of the E.O. The Petitioner submitted his reply, but the Opposite Party No. 3 taking into consideration the preliminary inquiry report issued in the second show-cause notice dated 5th March, 2017 observed that he did not agree with the findings of the Inquiry Officer and proposed to award punishment of two Black Marks. The Petitioner submitted his reply but the same was not accepted by the disciplinary authority and the proceeding was concluded by awarding punishment of two Black Marks and by treating the period of suspension with effect from 27th May, 2009 to 22nd October, 2009 as such. The Petitioner preferred appeal before Opposite Party No. 2, but the same was rejected by order dated 16th August, 2017. The Petitioner further filed a Revision before the Opposite Party No. 1, which was also rejected by order dated 31st July, 2018. Being aggrieved by such action of the disciplinary authority and revisional authority, the Petitioner approached the erstwhile Orissa Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, Bhubaneswar in O.A. No. 2283/2018, which has since been transferred to this Court and registered as the instant Writ Petition. The relief claimed by the Petitioner is as follows:

“To quash the punishment order dated 24.4.2017 as at Annexure-13, the appeal rejection order dated 16.8.2017 as at Annexure-14 and to quash the decision of the revisional authority dtd.31.7.2018 as at Annexure-16 declaring the same to be illegal, arbitrary and un