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

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 considered this acquittal in its decision to set aside the 2016 disciplinary order. It is established (Anantdeep Singh v. High Court of Punjab and Haryana (2024 INSC 673)) that when an employee is acquitted in a criminal case, particularly where the charges form the basis of a related disciplinary proceeding, the suspension must be regularized. Thus, court emphasized that Behera's acquittal meant that there was no substantive basis for penalizing him by treating his suspension as non-duty.

Additionally, the court considered the disciplinary authority's actions to be a violation of judicial discipline. By seeking to impose fresh penalties after the appellate authority had conclusively quashed the earlier order, the disciplinary authority acted beyond its jurisdiction. The court found that this amounted to an abuse of power and a disregard for established legal procedures. It held that judicial orders, especially those arising from appellate bodies, are binding and cannot be undermined by administrative directives. The court also highlighted that the Odisha Administrative Tribunal had, in 2015, directed the disciplinary authority to conclude the departmental proceedings within four months or treat the matter as closed. The proceedings, however, were not completed within the prescribed time, further supporting the petitioner's argument that no further penalties could be imposed on him.

Lastly, given the quashing of the penalty and the acquittal in the criminal case, the court ruled that Behera was entitled to full financial benefits for the suspension period from 30.09.2000 to 30.09.2013. This included back wages and the regularization of his service record. The court noted that Behera had been deprived of these benefits for an extended period despite his acquittal and the appellate authority's order in his favor. The court further emphasized that the abandonment of pay claims as ordered by the disciplinary authority in 2021 was legally unsustainable and must be set aside. Thus, the Orissa High Court quashed the 2021 disciplinary authority's order and directed the State to treat the period of suspension from 30.09.2000 to 30.09.2013 as duty. Behera was awarded full financial benefits, including arrears of pay and service regularization.

For the Petitioners: M/s. Krishna Chandra Sahu, Sudarshan Pradhan, D.K. Mahalik, Ajaya Kumar Samal, Monalisa Tripathy

For the Respondents: Mr. Arnav Behera, Additional Standing Counsel