The main legal point established in the judgment is the principle of proportionality in imposing disciplinary action, the requirement for clear and specific charges in a domestic inquiry, and the scope of judicial review in interfering with disproportionate punishments.

JUDGMENT

Dr. B.R. Sarangi, J. - The petitioner, who was working as a Constable in the office of the Superintendent of Police, Mayurbhanj, has filed this writ petition seeking to quash the order dated 04.09.2015 passed by the Superintendent of Police, Mayurbhanj in Mayurbhanj Departmental Proceeding No.5 of 2002 (Annexure-3) imposing punishment of dismissal from service treating the period of suspension from 18.01.2002 to 07.05.2002 as such; as well as the order dated 04.08.2016 passed by the appellate authority, viz., D.I.G. of Police, Eastern Region, Balasore (Annexure-4) confirming the order of punishment; so also the order dated 05.05.2018 passed by the Odisha Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, Bhubaneswar, in O.A. No. 2134 of 2016, as at Annexure-5, affirming the order of punishment imposed by the disciplinary authority as well as the order of confirmation passed by the appellate authority.

2. The factual matrix of the case, in brief, is that the petitioner, while working as a Constable under Superintendent of Police, Mayurbhanj, Departmental Proceeding No.5 of 2002 was initiated against him for gross misconduct, indiscipline, negligence and unauthorized absence from duty. It was alleged that while the petitioner was deputed to Rairangpur for sessions guard duty on 13.01.2002, his reliever reported to SDPO, Rairangpur. But he neither took his departure from CSI, Rairangpur nor from SDPO, Rairangpur, instead fled keeping his rifle in Rairangpur Sub-Treasury Guard. It was further alleged that on 16.01.2002, while he was driving a car rashly and negligently it dashed against a mini truck near Rairangpur Golei causing damage to the mini truck and after the accident he abused one Sapan Kumar Dey, the driver of that mini truck, assaulted him causing injuries on his person and snatched away cash of Rs.800/- so also a wrist watch. Consequentially, a criminal case was registered as Rairangpur P.S. Case No.3 of 2002.

2.1 The departmental proceeding was enquired into by appointing enquiry officer, who submitted his report to the disciplinary authority and ultimately the order dismissing the petitioner from service w.e.f. 08.01.2006, treating the period of suspension from 18.01.2002 to 07.05.2002 as such, was passed on 04.09.2015. Against the said order of punishment, the petitioner preferred appeal before the DIG of Police, Eastern Region, Balasore, who rejected the same vide order dated 04.08.2016. Challenging the said order, the petitioner approached the tribunal by filing O.A. No. 2540 of 2013 and after due adjudication, the tribunal, quashed the order of punishment as well as the confirming order passed by the appellate authority and directed the authority to proceed with the enquiry afresh by giving due opportunity to the petitioner to cross-examine the witnesses who were examined during the enquiry and after the enquiry is concluded, if he is found guilty, he may be given opportunity to submit his show cause and thereafter proceeded to conclude the enquiry.

2.2 In compliance of the above order, enquiry was conducted afresh by giving due opportunity to the petitioner to cross-examine the witnesses and the enquiry officer, after conducting the enquiry, concluded the same and submitted his report holding that the petitioner was guilty of the charges. On receipt of such inquiry report, the disciplinary authority, namely, S.P., Mayurbhanj, issued notice of show cause on 18.08.2015 to which the petitioner submitted reply.

Thereafter, a second show cause notice was issued to the petitioner and on receipt of the same, he submitted his reply. Thereafter, the order of dismissal from service and treating the period of suspension from 18.01.2002 to 07.05.2002 as such was passed. Against the said order of punishment, the petitioner preferred appeal before the appellate authority, which was ultimately rejected and the order of punishment was confirmed.

Against the order of the appellate authority, the petitioner approached the tribunal by f