The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK WP(C) No.2193 of 2020 ..... Binod Singh Petitioner Mr. A.K. Biswal, Advocate State of Odisha & Ors. -versus- ..... Opposite Parties Mr. P.K. Panda, ASC Mr. M.K. Mohanty, Advocate (Opp. Party No. 3) THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY CORAM: ORDER 21.11.2024 Order No.06 1. This matter is taken up through hybrid mode.
Legal Reasoning
2. Heard Mr. A.K. Biswal, learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner, Mr. P.K. Panda, learned Addl. Standing Counsel appearing for the State and Mr. M.K. Mohanty, learned counsel appearing for Opp. Party No. 3. 3. Petitioner has filed the present writ petition inter alia challenging order dtd.10.01.2020 so passed by Opp. Party No. 2 under Annexure- 5. Vide the said order while disposing the complaint filed by Opp. Party No. 3, Opp. Party No. 2 recommended for initiation of departmental proceeding against the Petitioner by the D.E.O., Mayurbhanj - Opp. Party No. 5. 4. Learned counsel for the Petitioner contended that a complaint was made by Opp. Party No. 3 alleging some illegal acts committed by the Petitioner before Opp. Party No. 2. On receipt of such complaint and on being directed Opp. Party No. 5 submitted a report on 30.08.2019. It is contended that without providing a copy of the Page 1 of 5. report so prepared by the D.E.O. basing on the complaint made by Opp. Party No. 3 on 12.07.2019, Opp. Party No. 2 while disposing the complaint passed the impugned order with a direction on the Opp. Party No. 5 to initiate departmental proceeding against the Petitioner. 4.1. It is contended that prior to submission of such a report by the D.E.O. on 30.08.2019 basing on the complaint made by Opp. Party No. 3 on 12.07.2019, Petitioner was never given an opportunity by Opp. Party No. 5. Therefore, basing on the report so submitted by Opp. Party No. 5 on 30.08.2019 and that too without providing a copy of the same, no direction could have been issued by Opp. Party No. 2 vide the impugned order dtd.10.01.2020 under Annexure-5. It is contended that Petitioner was seriously prejudiced due to submission of the ex parte enquiry report by the D.E.O. on 30.08.2019 and so also the final order passed by Opp. Party No. 2 on 10.01.2020 under Annexure-5 basing on such report. 4.2. It is also contended that as provided under Sec. 20(3) of the Odisha Lokayukta Act, 2014, a bench consisting of not less than three members of the Lokayukta shall consider every report received under sub-section (2) from the Inquiry Wing or any agency and after giving an opportunity of being heard to the public servant, decide as to whether there exists a prima facie case, and make recommendations to proceed with one or more of the following actions, namely:- (a) investigation by any agency (including any special investigation agency); Page 2 of 5. (b) initiation of the departmental proceedings or any other appropriate action against the concerned public servant by the competent authority; (c) closure of the proceedings against the public servant and take action to proceed against the complainant under section 46. It is contended that the impugned order in the present case has been passed by two of the members, which runs contrary to the provisions contained under Sec. 20 (3) of the Act. It is accordingly contended that the impugned order dt.10.01.2020 so passed by Opp. Party No. 2 under Annexure-5 is not sustainable in the eye of law. 5. Even though notice of the writ petition has been issued since 24.01.2020 with passing of an interim order, but no counter affidavit has been filed as yet. However, basing on the available materials, it is contended that when a complaint was made against the Petitioner by Opp. Party No. 3 before the Lokayukta on 12.07.2019, Opp. Party No. 5 was directed to cause an enquiry and to submit a report. Opp. Party No. 5 on causing enquiry submitted a report on 30.08.2019 and the said report since goes against the Petitioner, Opp. Party No. 2 while disposing the complaint issued the direction to Opp. Party No. 5 to initiate the proceeding against the Petitioner vide order dt.10.01.2020. 5.1. It is contended that since wrong committed by the Petitioner has been proved on enquiry by Opp. Party No. 5 basing on the complaint made by Opp. Party No. 3, no illegality or irregularity can be found with the impugned order. It is however contended that in view of the interim order passed by this Court on 24.01.2020, no further action has been taken basing on the impugned recommendation made by Opp. Party No. 2 under Annexure-5. Page 3 of 5. 6. Learned counsel appearing for Opp. Party No. 3 on the other hand contended that since Petitioner was involved with illegal release of salary in favour of three (3) employees of the school, a complaint was made before the Lokayukta on 12.07.2019 and basing on the enquiry report submitted by Opp. Party No. 5 on 30.08.2019, who found the Petitioner guilty of the allegation, Opp. Party No. 2 while disposing the complaint directed for initiation of proceeding against the Petitioner. It is accordingly contended that no illegality or irregularity can be found with such direction. 7. Having heard learned counsel appearing for the Parties and considering the submissions made, this Court finds that the impugned order has been passed by Opp. Party No. 2 basing on a complaint made by Opp. Party No.3 on 12.07.2019. It is also found that on receipt of the complaint and on being directed Opp. Party No. 5 submitted a report on 30.08.2019 and the said report as found is an ex parte report. It is also found that basing on such report submitted by Opp. Party No. 5 on 30.08.2019 the impugned direction was issued by Opp. Party No. 2 vide the impugned order dtd.10.01.2020
Decision
under Annexure-5. Since the proceeding has been disposed of basing on an enquiry report submitted by Opp. Party No. 5, which was never provided to the Petitioner, it is the view of this Court that basing on such report no direction could have been issued. It is also found that the enquiry report by Opp. Party No. 5 has been submitted ex parte basing on the complaint made by Opp. Party No. 3. It is also found that the impugned order has been passed by two (2) of the members of the Lokayukta, which is not in terms of the provisions contained under Sec. 20 (3) of the Act. Page 4 of 5. 7.1. In view of the aforesaid illegalities which are apparent on the face of the order, this Court is inclined to quash order dtd.10.01.2020 so passed by Opp. Party No. 2 under Annexure-5. While quashing the said order, this Court directs Opp. Party No. 2 to proceed with the matter afresh by providing a copy of the complaint to the Petitioner so filed by Opp. Party No. 3 on 12.07.2019. 7.2. It is further observed that Opp. Party No. 5 be also directed to cause fresh enquiry on such complaint by giving due opportunity of hearing to the Petitioner. Only after submission of a fresh report by Opp. Party No. 5, further action in accordance with law can be taken by Opp. Party No. 2. 8. The writ petition accordingly stands disposed of with the aforesaid observation and direction. Sneha (BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY) Judge Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: SNEHANJALI PARIDA Designation: Sr. Stenographer Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Date: 25-Nov-2024 12:46:14 Page 5 of 5.