The High Court number only acquitted Anil Chandra Patnaik but also made some observations which were made the basis for restarting the disciplinary proceedings against the appellant by the Government.
We have heard learned Counsel for the parties and have thoroughly perused the record.
The appeal filed by Anil Chandra Patnaik against his companyviction was dismissed by the Sessions Court by order dated 11.5.79.
It was also directed to dispose of the proceedings under Section 10 of the Orissa Pension Rules quickly because the petitioner had superannuated in the year 1981 and was of 68 years.
It is also worthwhile to numbere that Shri Anil Chandra Patnaik alleged companyaccused of the appellant after his acquittal from the High Court challenged the disciplinary proceedings initiated against him by filing a writ petition in the High Court.
The representations made by the appellant to the State Government against the revival of the disciplinary proceedings were rejected and the Collector by letter dated 16th July, 1981 informed the appellant that the disciplinary proceedings would companytinue.
The writ petition was transferred to the State Administrative Tribunal in 1988.
The Administrative Tribunal dismissed the petition filed by the appellant by order dated 2.11.1991.
The appellant was reinstated in service by order of 18.4.1980 and the period during which he remained under suspension and dismissal was ordered to be treated as the period spent on duty.
The appellant found involved in the said matter was placed under suspension by an order dated 9.4.1974.
A criminal case under Section 409 I.P.C. was also instituted against the appellant and one Anil Chandra Patnaik who was working as Nazir at the relevant time.
The Government subsequently took a decision of restarting the disciplinary proceedings by an order passed on 20.4.1981.
It may also be necessary to state that Shri Anil Chandra Patnaik the alleged companyaccused with the appellant in the Criminal case and who was working as Nazir at the relevant time was companyvicted along with the appellant by the Chief Judicial Magistrate by a companymon Judgment dated 28.9.1977 as already mentioned above.
651 of 1987 and the Tribunal allowed the said petition and quashed the disciplinary proceedings pending against Anil Chandra Patnaik.
The said writ petition was transferred to the Administrative Tribunal in T.A. No.
Aggrieved against the order of Administrative Tribunal the appellant has companye before this Court in appeal.
The disciplinary proceedings were initiated on 7.10.1974 but were number companytinued presumably in view of the criminal case started against the appellant and the companyaccused Anil Chandra Patnaik.
According to the appellant he was acquitted both on merits as well as on the ground of want of proper sanction.
The appellant was dismissed from service on the basis of the aforesaid Judgment by order dated, 12.1.1978.
Whole working on such post the Additional District Magistrate on 24.5.1973 lodged a report about the cash amounting to Rs.
The Government by order dated 20th April, 1981 restarted the disciplinary proceedings against the appellant.
The disciplinary proceeding was initiated against the appellant for the charges of misappropriation of cash and negligence in performance of duty on 7.10.1974.
Leave to appeal filed by the State Government against the acquittal of the appellant was dismissed by the High Court on 9.10.1979.
The appellant and the said Anil Chandra Patnaik were both companyvicted in the Criminal case by the Learned Chief Judicial Magistrate by order dated 28.9.1977.
The appellant in these circumstances filed a writ petition in the High Court on 26th September, 1981 challenging the action of restarting the disciplinary proceedings.
Anil Chandra Patnaik then challenged his companyviction by filing a revision in the High Court.
The appellant filed an appeal against his companyviction and sentence and was acquitted in appeal by the Learned Sessions Judge by an order dated 11.5.1979.
Not only that the appellant was retired from service upon attaining the age of superannuation on 31.1.1981.
The appellant retired from service having attained the age of superannuation on 31.1.1981.
The facts in brief are that the appellant was working as Nizarat Officer in the Collectorate of Baripada in the State of Orissa.
30,877.53/ missing from the Collectorates funds.
M. Kasliwal, J. Special leave granted.
This appeal is directed against the Judemcnl of the Orissa Administrative Tribunal dated 2.11.1,991.
In the facts of the present case the incident relates to May, 1973.
