Disciplinary proceedings cannot continue against an employee after retirement without specific legal provisions allowing such continuation.

JUDGMENT :

S.K. MISHRA,J.

1. The Petitioner, who was working as Environmental Scientist in the Office of the State Pollution Control Board, Odisha has preferred the present Writ Petition for quashing of the Departmental Proceeding initiated against him vide Memorandum dated 21.07.2012, as at Annexure-1, with an alternate prayer to keep the Departmental Proceeding pending till disposal of the criminal case.

2. The factual matrix of the case at hand is that one Sri Deepak Kumar Jena, S/o Sri Basanta Kumar Jena of village: Jamkunda, PS: Baliapal, Dist: Balasore reported in writing to the Balasore Vigilance Police Station alleging therein that the Petitioner while working as Regional Officer, State Pollution Control Board, Balasore Region, allegedly demanded bribe of Rs.5,000/- for issuance of No Objection Certificate. During course of investigation, a trap was laid after making preparation and the Petitioner was caught red handed while allegedly demanding and accepting the bribe of Rs.5,000/- from the complainant and the said money was recovered from his possession. Thereafter, the Petitioner was arrested and forwarded to the judicial custody followed by initiation of vigilance case against him. Accordingly, offence under Section 13 (2) read with (1)(d)/7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 was registered against the Petitioner in connection with Balasore Vigilance P.S. Case No.35 of 2011 and in the meantime, charge sheet has been submitted.

3. Thereafter, vide order dated 01.07.2011, the Petitioner was put under suspension. The Petitioner was allowed to go on bail by the learned Special Judge (Vigilance), Balasore on 03.07.2011. He was reinstated in service on 26.06.2012. The Opposite Party No.2-Employer issued a major penalty charge sheet against the Petitioner which was received by him on 23.07.2012. On perusal of the statement of imputations, it was ascertained by the Petitioner that the Disciplinary Proceeding has its genesis with regard to Balasore Vigilance P.S. Case No.35 of 2011 and the subject matter of the Disciplinary Proceeding and that of the Criminal Proceeding is same and the entire proceeding is based on the said Balasore Vigilance P.S. Case. Being aggrieved by the initiation of the said Departmental Proceeding, during pendency of the vigilance case, the Petitioner made a representation to Opposite Party No.2 on 14.08.2012 praying for supply of material documents based upon which, charges were framed against him and also made a further prayer that the Departmental Proceeding be kept in abeyance awaiting decision of the criminal case i.e Balasore Vigilance P.S. Case No.35 of 2011, pending before the Court of learned Special Judge (Vigilance), Balasore on the plea that the submission of objection to the allegations in the Charge Memo in the Departmental Proceeding at this stage, would disclose his defence, which would be used by the prosecution in the criminal case to his disadvantage. This would seriously prejudice the Petitioner in criminal proceeding because it also pointed out that since the allegations and the attenuating facts and circumstances are same and the witnesses are common in both the proceedings, the Petitioner would suffer strong prejudice in the event the Department Proceeding is allowed to be finalized during pendency of the vigilance case. Besides, it was contended before Opposite Party No.2-Disciplinary Authority that the witnesses, who would be cross-examined in the Departmental Proceeding, would know the defence of the Petitioner and accordingly would mould their evidences in the Criminal Proceeding