Prolonged delay in disciplinary proceedings and decision-making under the Orissa Forest Code violates employee rights and warrants quashing of recovery orders.

ORDER :

1. This matter is taken up through hybrid mode.

2. The petitioner has filed this writ petition challenging the orders dated 18.04.2006, 19.04.2006, 20.04.2006 & 21.04.2006 passed by the Opposite Party No.2 i.e., Conservator of Forest, Bolangir Kenduleaf Circle in Annexure 4 to 7. The petition calls into question the action of Opposite Party No.2 in rejecting the four sets of appeal filed by the Petitioner in one day and the initiation of order of recovery of withheld vouchers as the same is in contravention to Rule 346 (2) of the Orissa Forest Department Code .

I. FACTS OF THE CASE

3. Shorn of unnecessary details, the substratum of matter presented before this Court is that the Petitioner while working as Range Officer under the administrative control of the DFO Patnagarh Kenduleaf Division, had executed field operations in the range. While rendering monthly cash accounts, some objections were raised by the DFO following which the field payments that had been made were withheld by the DFO(KL) Patnagarh.

4. Aggrieved by the decision of the Opposite Party No.3, the Petitioner preferred four sets of appeal pertaining to his stint as Range Officer, Patnagarh (KL Range) from 1997-1999 before the Opposite Party No.2 in accordance with Rule 346 of the Orissa Forest Code, 1979 and prayed to change the entire amount by exonerating the Petitioner from any liability.

5. The four sets of appeal were filed in different spells (1st on 18.06.1997, 2nd on 07.11.1997, 3rd on 03.11.1998 and 4th on 21.01.2000) as against the total amount of Rs.11, 751.10/-.While the matter stood, the Petitioner was transferred to Khariar Division where he was served with order dated 19.11.2005 for recovery of Rs.12,885/- (the disallowed amount). The said amount was ordered to be recovered from the salary of the Petitioner and was pertaining to his incumbency as Range Officer, Patnagarh KL.

6. The Petitioner approached the Orissa Administrative Tribunal, Cuttack Bench in O.A No. 2427 (c) of 2005 with a prayer to quash the order of recovery as the same is not sustainable in the eyes of the law. The learned tribunal disposed of the case vide order dated 19.01.2006 with a direction to Opposite Party No.2 to dispose of the appeal within a period of 8 weeks and stayed the order of recovery.

7. Subsequently, the Opposite Party No.2 vide orders dated 18.04.2006, 19.04.2006, 20.04.2006 & 21.04.2006 decided the appeal and the order of recovery of amount for withheld vouchers was intimated to the Petitioner vide communication dated 22.11.2006. Hence, the Petitioner has sought for quashment of the order of recovery under Annexures-4-7.

II. SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER

8. It is submitted by Learned Counsel for the Petitioner that the decision on withheld vouchers should be taken within 3 months from the date of communication of the order failing which all withheld vouchers shall be incorporated in the accounts; however, the DFO and the Conservator have not complied with this requirement under Rule 346 (2) of the Orissa Forest Code, 1979.

9. Furthermore, it is contended by Learned Counsel for the Petitioner that the DFO, Patnagarh KL Division deviated Rule 346 (2) of the Orissa Forest Code, 1979 and withheld the disallowed vouchers. The appeal relating to these vouchers were finally disposed of after a lapse of 8 years and therefore, the order of rejection and recovery under Annexure 4-7 is liable to be quashed in view of Rule 346 (2) of the Orissa Forest Code, 1979.

III. SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE OPPOSITE PARTY

10. Per Contra, it is submitted by Learned Counsel for the Opposite Parties that the Petitioner had not