The Orissa High Court, led by Justice Murahari Sri Raman, has annulled the punishment given to Kansari Behera, a retired Revenue Inspector. The court criticized the disciplinary authority for incorrectly classifying Behera’s suspension period from September 30, 2000, to September 30, 2013, as non-duty. The court emphasized that the disciplinary authority failed to follow a previous appellate order and determined that Behera’s acquittal in a related criminal case should have led to the recognition of his service period. The court ordered that the suspension time be treated as duty and mandated that Behera receive full financial benefits for that period.
Background
Kansari Behera served as a Revenue Inspector in the Chakapad Tahasil of Kandhamal district. He was suspended on September 30, 2000, due to a criminal case filed against him under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, involving allegations of bribery. Concurrently, a departmental inquiry was initiated under the Odisha Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1962 (OCS (CCA) Rules). In September 2001, Behera was dismissed from service.
Behera contested his suspension and dismissal by filing a petition with the Odisha Administrative Tribunal (OAT), which stayed the disciplinary proceedings until the criminal case was resolved. In 2011, he was acquitted by the Special Judge (Vigilance) in Berhampur, as the prosecution failed to establish that he accepted a bribe. However, Behera was not reinstated until 2013, and when he was, his 13-year suspension period was classified as non-duty, which denied him full back wages. Behera appealed this decision to the appellate authority, which overturned the disciplinary authority’s ruling in 2019. Despite this, the disciplinary authority issued a new order in 2021, maintaining that the suspension period should still not be treated as duty. Displeased with this outcome, Behera sought justice from the Orissa High Court.
Petitioner’s Arguments
Mr. Krishna Chandra Sahu, representing Behera, argued that the disciplinary authority had no right to issue a new ruling on the suspension period after the appellate authority had already invalidated the previous order. He claimed that the disciplinary authority improperly relied on an advisory from the Revenue and Disaster Management Department, which undermined judicial authority. Behera’s counsel insisted that the acquittal in the criminal case warranted the regularization of the suspension period according to the appellate authority’s decision, entitling Behera to full financial benefits, including back wages for the entire duration of his suspension.
Respondent’s Arguments
Mr. Arnav Behera, the Additional Standing Counsel for the State, defended the disciplinary authority’s actions. He argued that Behera’s suspension was justified, as he had been in police custody for over 48 hours, which automatically triggered suspension under the OCS (CCA) Rules. The respondents contended that Behera was not cleared of the departmental charges despite his criminal acquittal. Thus, they claimed that the suspension period should not be classified as duty, and he was only entitled to a subsistence allowance during that time.
Court’s Reasoning
The court highlighted that under Rule 29 of the OCS (CCA) Rules, once an appellate authority quashes or modifies an order, the original authority cannot impose the same or similar penalty again without explicit instructions from the appellate body. The appellate authority had clearly nullified the disciplinary order that categorized Behera’s suspension as non-duty, labeling the penalty as “unwarranted and unjustified.” Despite this, the disciplinary authority sought advice from the Revenue and Disaster Management Department and issued a new order in 2021, which the court deemed a direct violation of the appellate authority’s ruling. The court stressed that judicial orders must take precedence over administrative opinions.
Additionally, regarding the criminal case, the Special Judge acquitted Behera in 2011, finding that while the demand for a bribe was established, there was no proof of actual acceptance. The appellate authority had considered this acquittal when overturning the previous disciplinary order. The court noted that established precedent dictates that an employee’s suspension must be regularized when they are acquitted in a criminal case related to disciplinary proceedings. The court underscored that Behera’s acquittal provided no valid basis for penalizing him by classifying his suspension as non-duty.
The court also determined that the disciplinary authority had violated judicial discipline by attempting to impose fresh penalties after the appellate authority had already quashed the earlier order. This action was seen as an overreach of authority and disregard for established legal protocols. The court pointed out that the Odisha Administrative Tribunal had previously instructed the disciplinary authority to conclude the departmental proceedings within four months or consider the case closed, yet those proceedings were not completed in the required timeframe.
Finally, with the penalty quashed and Behera acquitted in the criminal case, the court ruled that he was entitled to full financial benefits for his suspension period from September 30, 2000, to September 30, 2013. This included back wages and regularization of his service record. The court noted that Behera had been unjustly deprived of these benefits for a significant time despite the appellate authority’s favorable ruling. The court concluded that the 2021 directive to forfeit pay claims was legally invalid and must be overturned. Consequently, the Orissa High Court annulled the 2021 disciplinary authority’s order and mandated that the suspension period be treated as duty, awarding Behera full financial benefits, including arrears of pay and service regularization.