4. 06.12.2018 Heard learned counsel for the parties. By way of this writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 205.2010 passed by the Odisha Administrative Tribunal, Bhubaneswar in O.A. No. 315 of 2009 whereby learned Tribunal has dismissed the Original Application upholding the penalty imposed on the petitioner. It appears from the record that after enquiry, the authority vide his order has imposed penalty in the month of December, 2008 which reads as under: “Whereas as per provision of sub-rule-(1) (b) of Rule 15 of the O.C.S. (C.C.&A.) Rules, 1962, the 2nd show-cause notice was issued to the Delinquent Officer, vide Home Department Notification No.14225, dt.12.3.08 indicating the above punishment to be imposed on him with a request to submit his 2nd show-cause reply against the proposed penalty, if any within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of the notice and the show-cause reply was submitted by the Delinquent Officer on 30.5.2008. And therefore, after careful consideration of the records of the proceedings, i.e. charges, written statement of Defence submitted by the Delinquent Officer, Inquiry Report furnished by the Inquiring Officer, 1st show-cause reply of the Delinquent Officer against the findings of the Inquiring Officer, his 2nd show-cause reply against the proposed penalty and on the advice of OPSC communicated in their Letter No.11710/PSC, dt.21.10.2008 thereon, Government have been pleased to finalize the aforesaid proceedings with imposition of the following punishment on the Delinquent Officer Sri Nayak under the provisions of the Rule-7 of the OCS (Pension) Rules, 1992.” Learned Tribunal while considering the matter has rightly observed at paragraph-8 of its order as follows: W.P.(C) No.22312 of 2010 2 “8. The imputations levelled against the applicant and the inquiry report reveal that the applicant has not followed departmental guidelines in purchase of articles. He made unnecessary purchase of G.I. pipes without proper publicity towards purchase of the same, though there was huge stock. Further there was no competition in bidding. The charge memo and findings of the Inquiring Officer amply reveal the misconduct was that the applicant made unnecessary purchase of articles without proper bidding. This is a grave misconduct on the part of a government employee. Accordingly the submission of the learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant was not found guilty of any grave misconduct, is not sustainable.” On hearing learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of relevant records, we are in complete agreement with the view taken by learned Tribunal and no case is made out to interfere with the same. This writ petition stands dismissed. ……..………………… K.S. JHAVERI (CHIEF JUSTICE) bks/jm ……..…………………… K.R. MOHAPATRA (JUDGE) .