Orissa High Court Quashes 13-Year Suspension Penalty On Revenue Inspector After Acquittal In Corruption Case; Orders Full Financial Benefits

Orissa High Court: A Single Judge Bench of Justice Murahari Sri Raman quashed the punishment imposed on Kansari Behera, a retired Revenue Inspector, for treating the suspension period from 30.09.2000 to 30.09.2013 as non-duty. The court held that the disciplinary authority violated the law by failing to comply with an earlier appellate order and emphasized that Behera's acquittal in a related criminal case should have resulted in the regularization of his service period. The court directed that the suspension period be treated as duty, and Behera be granted full financial benefits for the period. Background Kansari Behera, a Revenue Inspector working under Chakapad Tahasil in Kandhamal district, was placed under suspension on 30.09.2000 following the institution of a criminal case under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The case involved allegations of demanding and accepting a bribe. Simultaneously, a departmental proceeding was initiated against him under the Odisha Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1962 (OCS (CCA) Rules). Consequently, in September 2001, Behera was dismissed from service. Behera challenged the suspension and subsequent dismissal by filing a petition before the Odisha Administrative Tribunal (OAT). The tribunal stayed the disciplinary proceedings pending the outcome of the criminal case. In 2011, Behera was acquitted by the Special Judge (Vigilance), Berhampur, on the grounds that the prosecution had failed to prove acceptance of the bribe beyond reasonable doubt. The disciplinary authority, however, did not immediately reinstate him, and when it did in 2013, it treated the 13-year suspension period as non-duty, denying him full back wages. Behera appealed this decision to the appellate authority (Revenue Divisional Commissioner, Southern Division), which set aside the disciplinary authority's order in 2019. Despite this, the disciplinary authority passed a fresh order in 2021 affirming that the suspension period should not be treated as duty. Aggrieved, Behera approached the Orissa High Court. Petitioner's Arguments Mr. Krishna Chandra Sahu, counsel for the petitioner, argued that once the appellate authority had quashed the disciplinary authority's order treating the suspension period as non-duty, the disciplinary authority had no jurisdiction to issue fresh directions on the matter. He contended that the disciplinary authority's reliance on an advisory from the Revenue and Disaster Management Department to reissue the penalty violated judicial discipline. Behera's counsel further submitted that the acquittal in the criminal case meant that the suspension should be regularized as per the appellate authority's decision, and the petitioner should be entitled to full financial benefits, including back wages for the entire suspension period. Respondent's Arguments Mr. Arnav Behera, learned Additional Standing Counsel representing the State, defended the actions of the disciplinary authority. He argued that Behera's suspension was justified because he had been under police custody for more than 48 hours, triggering automatic suspension under the OCS (CCA) Rules. The respondents asserted that Behera had not been exonerated of the departmental charges, even though he was acquitted in the criminal case. Therefore, the disciplinary authority had rightly determined that the suspension period should not be treated as duty and that Behera was only entitled to subsistence allowance during the period. Court's Reasoning According to Rule 29 of the OCS (CCA) Rules, 1962, once an appellate authority quashes or modifies an order, the original authority has no discretion to reimpose the same or a similar penalty without explicit directions from the appellate body. The appellate authority, in this case, had clearly quashed the 2016 order that treated Behera's suspension period as non-duty, citing that the imposition of such a penalty was “unwarranted and unjustified.” Despite this, the disciplinary authority sought advice from the Revenue and Disaster Management Department and issued a fresh order in 2021 affirming the same penalty. The court found this to be in direct defiance of the appellate authority's ruling, stressing that under Rule 30 of the OCS (CCA) Rules, the disciplinary authority was bound to implement the appellate order and had no authority to seek an administrative advisory in this context. The court underscored that judicial and quasi-judicial orders must prevail over administrative opinions. Furthermore, in the criminal proceedings, Behera had been charged under Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The Special Judge (Vigilance) acquitted him in 2011, finding that while the demand for a bribe had been proven, there was no evidence to show that Behera had accepted the bribe. The appellate authority had already...

Orissa High Court Quashes 13-Year Suspension Penalty On Revenue Inspector After Acquittal In Corruption Case; Orders Full Financial Benefits

Pranav Kumar

Tags