TMI Blog2013 (10) TMI 1337X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rder passed by the Orissa Administrative Tribunal in O.A. No. 831 of 2006 dated 27th November, 2008 has been confirmed. 3. The facts giving rise to the present litigation, in a nutshell, are as under :- The respondent was appointed as an Inspector of Supplies on the post which had been reserved for SC/ST candidates. It was reported to the Government Authorities that, in fact, the respondent was not belonging to either SC or ST and therefore, proceedings were to be initiated against him so as to ascertain whether the information received was correct. Though the proceedings had been initiated, by an order dated 16th October, 1995, the said proceedings had been dropped. Thereafter, on 4th September, 2000, the aforesaid decision with regard ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... before the Tribunal as well as the High Court was that once a decision was taken on 16th October, 1995 to drop the departmental proceedings initiated against him, the said decision could not have been reviewed on 4th September, 2000. Therefore, no proceedings could have been initiated against the respondent in pursuance of the said order dated 4th September, 2000. 8. The submissions advanced before the Tribunal, the High Court and before this Court on behalf of the respondent-employee were to the effect that under Rule 31 of the Rules only the Governor has the power to take any order in review whereas under Rule 32 of the Rules, the appellate-authority can take any order into review, but in the instant case, none could have reviewed the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... uch penalty, pass such orders as he may deem fit. 32. Review of Orders in Disciplinary Cases -The authority to which an appeal against an order imposing any of the penalties specified in Rule 13 lies may, of its own motion or otherwise, call for the records of the case in a disciplinary proceeding, review any order passed in such a case and, after consultation with the Commission, where such consultation is necessary, pass such orders as it deems fit as if the Government servant had preferred an appeal against such order : Provided that no action under this rule shall be initiated more than six months after the date of the order to be reviewed. 9. It had been submitted on behalf of the respondent-employee that in the instant case, the o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ceedings were just and proper and the Division Bench of the High Court had committed an error by upholding the view of the Tribunal. 12. We have heard the concerned counsel and have carefully gone through the impugned judgment as well as the order passed by the Tribunal dated 27th November, 2008. We have also gone through the relevant orders placed on record before this Court by both the parties. 13. Upon hearing the learned counsel and looking to the provisions of the Rules we are of the view that the order dated 4th September, 2000, reviewing the order dated 16th October, 1995 was not in accordance with the Rules. By virtue of the order dated 16th October, 1995, it was decided to drop the departmental proceedings initiated against t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... re than six months from the date on which the order to be reviewed was passed. By virtue of the order dated 4th September, 2000, the order dated 16th October, 1995 had been taken into review and as it was taken into review after more than six months, the order would be bad if it was passed under Rule 32 of the Rules. Thus, initiation of proceedings in pursuance of order dated 4th September, 2000 was bad and rightly held so by the Tribunal and confirmed by the High Court. 16. Upon perusal of both the aforestated Rules, it is clear that an order, passed by the Government Authorities, can be reviewed. So far as Rule 32 of the Rules is concerned, in a disciplinary case the Appellate Authority can review the order but the Authority can review ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eriod of five years can be said to be reasonable in the facts of the case. 18. It might be open to the appellant-State to initiate some proceedings against the respondent-employee again. However, the subsequent development in the matter is that the respondent- employee has already reached the age of superannuation. Looking at the peculiar facts of the case and in the interest of justice, we feel that no further action should be taken against the respondent- employee as the matter is pending since long and it requires a quietus. In view of these peculiar circumstances, following the principle of no work, no pay , we direct that no back wages should be paid to the respondent-employee for the period during which he had not worked with the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
