Orissa High Court
Case Details
Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Designation: AR-CUM-SR. SECRETARY Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 18-Nov-2024 19:08:04 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C) No.31267 of 2011 (In the matter of an application under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, 1950). Rajanikanta Mangaraj …. Petitioner(s) -versus- State of Orissa and others …. Opposite Party (s) Advocates appeared in the case through Hybrid Mode: For Petitioner(s) For Opposite Party (s) : :
Legal Reasoning
Mr.Soubhagya S.Das, Adv. Mr.Sonak Mishra, ASC Mr. S. K. Pattnaik, Sr. Adv. Along with Mr. S. Pattnaik, Adv. CORAM: DR. JUSTICE S.K. PANIGRAHI DATE OF HEARING:-29.08.2024 DATE OF JUDGMENT:-08.11.2024 Dr. S.K. Panigrahi, J. 1. Through this Writ Petition, the petitioner seeks to quash both the disciplinary proceedings and the 2024 award, arguing that they were issued without proper jurisdiction. Additionally, the petitioner requests full pension benefits for the position of Senior Clerk, asserting that procedural errors occurred and that the employer-employee Page 1 of 8 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Designation: AR-CUM-SR. SECRETARY Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 18-Nov-2024 19:08:04 relationship ceased after his retirement, rendering further disciplinary action invalid. I. FACTUAL MATRIX OF THE CASE: 2. The brief facts of the case are as follows: (i) The petitioner, serving as a Field Assistant at the Dhani Rubber Plantation under the Tangi Commercial Plantation Sub-Division, was responsible for the custody of rubber sheets stored in a corporation godown. (ii) M/s Vignesh Chemtech Pvt. Ltd. had taken lease of Dhani Rubber Plantation from OFDC Ltd. for the collection of rubber latex and the production of rubber sheets, subject to payment of the full sale value before any removal of stock. (iii) The petitioner allegedly failed in his duty to protect the interest of the employer, resulting in the unauthorized removal of 75.75 quintals of rubber sheets from the godown. (iv) It was discovered that 40 quintals of rubber sheets were removed on 19.02.2009 without any proper report to higher authorities, and the petitioner did not file an FIR at the time of the incident. Despite specific instructions to prevent the removal of stock due to pending payments from the contractor, the petitioner took no action to protect the corporation’s interests. (v) An internal stock verification later revealed additional shortages, and upon further inquiry, it was found that the petitioner had been negligent, disobeyed orders, and potentially colluded with the contractor’s employees. Page 2 of 8 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Designation: AR-CUM-SR. SECRETARY Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 18-Nov-2024 19:08:04 (vi) As a result, disciplinary proceedings was initiated, culminating in a penalty that included recovery of Rs.5,55,300/- from the petitioner’s salary and the stoppage of two increments with cumulative effect. (vii) The petitioner appealed against the penalties on 24.05.2011; however, the Appellate Authority upheld the disciplinary order on 31.10.2011. As an interim measure, Rs.4,000/- was deducted monthly from the petitioner’s salary. Subsequently/ a Writ Petition resulted in a High Court stay on these deductions until the appeal was resolved. (viii) Aggrieved by the penalties imposed, the petitioner has filed this Writ Petition, contending that the penalties were grossly disproportionate and lacked any factual or evidentiary basis linking him to the alleged losses. II. SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER: 3. (i) Learned counsel for the Petitioner earnestly made the following submissions in support of his contentions: The petitioner submitted that his leave was authorized, as evidenced by official communications assigning Mr. S.R. Sahoo as his temporary replacement. Therefore, he should not be held accountable for the thefts that occurred in his absence. (ii) He further submitted that the basis on which the authorities determined the extent of his liability (1/3 of the total loss) without any clear rationale or formula. He argued that this arbitrary penalty assignment indicated that he was unfairly made a scapegoat. Page 3 of 8 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Designation: AR-CUM-SR. SECRETARY Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 18-Nov-2024 19:08:04 (iii) The petitioner contended that holding him responsible for losses occurring while he was on leave demonstrated administrative unfairness and lack of reasonableness in decision-making. (iv) He further contended that the Contractor’s admission of liability was the most compelling evidence. Given this admission, the finding of the authorities holding that the petitioner was solely liable was legally unsustainable. III. SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE OPPOSITE PARTIES: 4. (i) The Learned Counsel for the Opposite Parties earnestly made the following submissions in support of his contentions: It is submitted that the petitioner was responsible for the safekeeping of rubber sheets in the godown and failed to fulfil his custodial duties, resulting in substantial financial losses for OFDC Ltd. (ii) He further submitted that the evidence suggested that the petitioner acted in collusion with M/s Vignesh Chemtech Pvt. Ltd., removing stock without authorization, which was later found missing. (iii) It is contended that despite a significant stock shortage, the petitioner delayed report to the reporting to the authorities and did not immediately file an FIR. Additionally, he extended his leave unauthorizedly, further aggravating the situation. (iv) He further contended that a thorough disciplinary inquiry was conducted, following the rules and principles of natural justice, and the actions taken were in line with the findings of the inquiry and proportionate to the established misconduct. The imposed penalties are deemed just and in accordance with OFC Service Rules, 1986. Page 4 of 8 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Designation: AR-CUM-SR. SECRETARY Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 18-Nov-2024 19:08:04 IV. COURT’S REASONING AND ANALYSIS: 5. 6. 7. 8. Heard learned counsel for the parties and examined the materials submitted before this Court. At the outset, it is apparent that the petitioner was entrusted with the duty of securing the rubber sheets stored in the corporation’s godown. A detailed inquiry by the corporation’s competent authority revealed a dereliction of this duty by the petitioner, leading to a quantified loss of Rs.5,55,330/- to the corporation, which is now sought to be recovered as a penalty against him. Now, it is no more res integra that the quantum of punishment in disciplinary matters is primarily for the disciplinary authority to determine and the jurisdiction of the High Courts under Article 226 of the Constitution or of the Administrative Tribunals is limited and is confined to the applicability of one or other of the well-known principles known as ‘Wednesbury Principles’. In Associated Provincial Picture Houses Ltd. v. Wednesbury Corporation1, it was articulated that where statutory discretion is vested in an administrative authority, the ambit of judicial review is inherently limited. Lord Greene expounded that judicial interference is unwarranted unless one or more specific conditions are met: namely, if the decision is contrary to law, if relevant considerations were omitted, or if the conclusion reached was one that no reasonable authority could have made in similar circumstances. 1 (1948) 1 KB 223. Page 5 of 8 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Designation: AR-CUM-SR. SECRETARY Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 18-Nov-2024 19:08:04 9. Similar sentiment has been echoed in the case of B.C. Chaturvedi v. Union of India2in para 18 wherein the Supreme Court observed and held as under: ““18. A review of the above legal position would establish that the disciplinary authority, and on appeal the appellate authority, being factfinding authorities have exclusive power to consider the evidence with a view to maintain discipline. They are invested with the discretion to impose appropriate punishment keeping in view the magnitude or gravity of the misconduct. The High Court/Tribunal, while exercising the power of judicial review, cannot normally substitute its own conclusion on penalty and impose some other penalty. If the punishment imposed by the disciplinary authority or the appellate authority shocks the conscience of the High Court/Tribunal, it would appropriately mould the relief, either directing the disciplinary/appellate authority to reconsider the penalty imposed, or to shorten the litigation, it may itself, in exceptional and rare cases, impose appropriate punishment with cogent reasons in support thereof” 10. Likewise, in State Bank of India v. Samarendra Kishore Endow and Anr.,3 the Supreme Court emphasized that the High Court should not interfere with a punishment imposed following a proper inquiry. If the punishment appears excessive, the appropriate action is not to alter the penalty but rather to remit the matter back to the Appellate Disciplinary Authority. The Supreme Court noted this approach, underscoring judicial restraint in such cases and observed as follows: “Imposition of appropriate punishment is within the discretion and judgment of the Disciplinary Authority. It may be open to the Appellate Authority to interfere with it, but not to the