Disciplinary proceedings must adhere to statutory procedures; failure to follow these renders resultant penalties unsustainable.

JUDGMENT :

Biraja Prasanna Satapathy, J.

1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual/Physical) Mode.

2. Heard learned counsel appearing for the Parties.

3. Since all these three Writ Petitions have been filed challenging the order of punishment passed on 18.03.2019 in three different disciplinary proceedings initiated against the deceased employee Jay Chandra Patra, all the matters were heard analogously and disposed of by the present common order.

4. Learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner contended that the deceased employee while in service three different departmental proceedings were initiated against him vide Memorandums dtd.13.01.1982, 03.01.1986 and 31.12.1991. In all those proceedings, the deceased employee not only participated in the proceeding, but also participated in the enquiry.

4.1. However, on the face of such participation of the deceased employee, when no decision was taken in concluding the proceedings, the deceased employee approached the Tribunal in O.A Nos.2126, 2127 & 2128 of 2002 with a prayer to direct the Opposite Parties to conclude the proceedings within a stipulated time period.

4.2. All the three Original Applications were disposed of by the Tribunal vide order dtd.08.11.2002 under Annexures-4 to 6 and with a direction on the disciplinary authority- Opposite Party No.4 to dispose of the proceedings within a period of three (3) months from the date of receipt of the order. The Tribunal passed further order that pending disposal of the disciplinary proceedings, the deceased employee be allowed to draw minimum of the current revised scale attached to the post he is holding.

4.3. It is contended that on the face of such order passed by the Tribunal under Annexures-4 to 6, none of the proceedings initiated against the deceased employee was disposed of, nor the deceased employee was allowed the benefit of increment as due and admissible after allowing the minimum of the revised scale, till he attained the age of superannuation on 30.09.2010.

4.4. It is contended that even after retirement of the deceased employee on 30.09.2010, the deceased employee was not sanctioned with pension and other pensionary benefits, because of the pendency of the proceedings in question. However, without complying the provisions contained under Rule-15 of the OCS (CCA) Rules, 1962 (in short ‘1962 Rules’) and without converting the proceedings to a proceeding under Rule-7 of OCS (Pension) Rules, 1992 (in short ‘1992 Rules’), Opposite Party No.4 by a cryptic orders of even date disposed of all the three proceedings, vide the impugned office order dtd.18.03.2019, which are impugned in the present three Writ Petitions.

4.5. It is also contended that such an order was passed by the disciplinary authority –Opposite Party No.4 on 18.03.2019, basing on the enquiry report submitted on 16.03.2019, so apparent on the face of the impugned order itself.

4.6. Learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner contended that since statutory provisions contained under Rule-15 (10)(i)(a) & (b) of the 1962 Rules were never followed, nor the proceeding was converted to a proceeding under Rule-7 of 1992 Rules, prior to disposal of the proceedings, the order of punishment passed on 18.03.2019 in all the three cases is not sustainable in the eye of law and requires interference of this Court. Rule- 15(10)(i)(a)&(b) of the 1962 Rules and Rule-7 of the 1992 Rules reads as follows:-

“Rule I5(10)(i) (a) & (b) of OCS (CC&A) Rules, 1962, provides as follows;

"(a) If the inquiring officer is not the disciplinary authority, the disciplinary authority shall furnish to the delinquent Government servant a copy of the report of th