The court emphasized that a disciplinary order must provide clear reasoning; failing this, the order is unsustainable and violates principles of natural justice.

JUDGMENT :

V. Narasingh, J.

The Petitioner, Junior Assistant under the Opposite Party Cuttack Development Authority has filed the writ application assailing the order of punishment dtd. 10.02.2012 passed by the Vice Chairman, Cuttack Development Authority (Opp. Party No.3) under Annexure-16 and the consequential order passed by the Appellate Authority dtd. 03.07.2014 under Annexure-20, with a further prayer to regularize his entire service period and to grant him all consequential service and financial benefits.

The prayer in the writ petition is culled out hereunder for reference:-

“Under the above circumstances, it is therefore humbly prayed that this Hon'ble Court be graciously pleased to quash the order of punishment imposed on the petitioner dated 10.2.2012 under Annexure-16 and the consequential order of the appellate authority communicated on 3.7.2014 under Annexure-20.

And further the Hon'ble Court be pleased to direct the opp. parties to regularize the services of the petitioner and to grant him the consequential service and financial benefits.

And/or pass any other appropriate writ/writs, direction/ directions, order/orders in the fitness of the case;

xxx xxx xxx

1. The uncontroverted facts run thus:-

In the year 1990, the Petitioner was appointed as Junior Assistant under the Cuttack Development Authority (CDA) on DLR basis and his services were regularized on 14.12.1994.

1-A. The Petitioner was working as Bench Clerk to the Secretary, CDA with effect from dt.01.03.2005. While working as such, it is alleged that he did not put up 205 number of files relating to U.C. cases (unauthorized construction) files before the Secretary on the scheduled dates during the year 2005 and 2006. And, it is further alleged that the Petitioner also did not take steps to put up 1315 numbers of unauthorized construction cases filed before the Secretary, which were pending since 1984 to 2005, during his period of working as Bench Clerk.

The Petitioner was placed under suspension vide Office Order No.9250 dated 24.04.2007 (Annexure-1).

1-B. Alleging these irregularities and negligence in duty, disobedience of orders and „misconduct‟, a memorandum of charges along with imputations dated 02.06.2007 at Annexure-2 was served on the Petitioner, and by order dated 12.09.2007 at Annexure-6, the Enquiry Officer was appointed for conducting enquiry into the charges at Annexure-2.

It is submitted that the proceeding was initiated against the Petitioner under Rule 15(9), [15. Procedure for imposing Major Penalties – (1) to (8). xxx xxx xxx (9) The disciplinary authority shall, if it is not the inquiring authority, consider the record of the inquiry and record its findings on each charge.] of the Orissa Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1962.

1-C. Mr. Sameer Ku. Das, learned counsel states that the Petitioner was neither supplied with the documents nor was he allowed to inspect the files which, form the basis of the imputation of charges, for which the Petitioner had to approach this Court in W.P.(C) No.8076 of 2008 and W.P.(C) No.18806 of 2008. And, subsequently he was only allowed to peruse the record pursuant to the orders passed by this Court

1-D. After inspecting the records, the Petitioner filed his statement of defence on 09.04.2010 at Annexure- 12, denying all the charges levelled against him. In the statement of defence, the Petitioner pleaded that the allegation levelled against him was that he had not put up the files before the Secretary for disposal of the case. But the duties of the Bench Clerk are only to put up those files before the Presiding Officer (Secretary). Whereas, the dates are