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: 03-Feb-2025 11:39:33 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C) No. 3789 of 2024 (In the matter of an application under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, 1950). Sunil Kumar Parida …. Petitioner(s) -versus- State of Odisha & Ors. …. Opposite Party (s) Advocates appeared in the case throughHybrid Mode: For Petitioner(s) For Opposite Party (s) : : Smt. Subhasree Mohanty, Adv. Mr.Sonak Mishra, ASC CORAM: DR. JUSTICE S.K. PANIGRAHI DATE OF HEARING:-15.01.2025 DATE OF JUDGMENT:-30.01.2025 Dr.S.K. Panigrahi, J. 1. The Petitioner, in the present Writ Petition, is challenging the order of suspension dated 08.02.2024 passed by the Collector, Dhenkanal on the grounds that it violates the procedure laid down in Rule 12 of the Odisha Civil Service (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 1962. I. FACTUAL MATRIX OF THE CASE:
Facts
2. The brief facts of the case are as follows: (i) The petitioner is serving as the Panchayat Executive Officer for the Sankulei and Kankadahada Gram Panchayats of Sadar Block, Dhenkanal. Page 1 of 11 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Designation: AR-CUM-SR. SECRETARY Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 03-Feb-2025 11:39:33 (ii) In pursuance of the order dated 06.02.2024 issued by the Block Development Officer (‚BDO‛), Sadar Block, Dhenkanal; the petitioner was assigned the duty of Nodal Officer to accompany devotees from his Block to Puri for the ‘Shree Mandir Parikrama Prakalpa’ on 07.02.2024. (iii) Further, by an order dated 08.02.2024, the BDO, Sadar Block, Dhenkanal, assigned the petitioner the duty of Nodal Officer for Sankulei Gram Panchayat for the implementation of the Information, Education, and Communication (IEC) campaign by cultural troupes. (iv) On 09.02.2024, upon reporting to the office, the petitioner was served with a suspension order dated 08.02.2024 issued by the Collector, Dhenkanal. The order placed the petitioner under suspension with effect from 08.02.2024, based on a report dated 07.02.2024 submitted by the BDO, Sadar Block, Dhenkanal, alleging misconduct, gross negligence in government duties, indiscipline, and unauthorized absence. (v) Aggrieved by the order of suspension, the petitioner has approached this court seeking its intervention. 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 contended that, pursuant to the order dated 06.02.2024 issued by the BDO, Sadar Block, Dhenkanal, he was assigned the duty of Nodal Officer to accompany devotees from his Block to Puri for the ’Shree Mandir Parikrama Prakalpa’ on 07.02.2024. Accordingly, he left for Puri at 6:30 a.m. by the designated bus with the devotees and Page 2 of 11 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Designation: AR-CUM-SR. SECRETARY Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 03-Feb-2025 11:39:33 returned to the Panchayat at approximately 10:30 p.m. On 08.02.2024, he reported to the office and performed his duties without any complain. However, despite efficiently discharging the assigned duties, he was served with a suspension order dated 08.02.2024, issued by the Collector, Dhenkanal, without prior notice or an opportunity for hearing. (ii) The petitioner submitted that the suspension order, which cites allegations of misconduct, gross negligence, indiscipline, and
Legal Reasoning
demonstrated that the order was passed in bad faith or lacks prima facie evidence connecting the employee to the alleged misconduct. The scope of judicial review in suspension matters is not to serve as an appellate forum. Rather, the Court’s role is to ensure that the actions of the concerned authority adhere to the principles of natural justice, and that the suspension is not arbitrary or devoid of a reasonable basis. 8. Suspension, though a serious measure, may be employed as an interim step to prevent interference with the investigation or the possibility of further misconduct that could harm the interests of the State. It must be imposed after careful consideration of the gravity of the charges and the evidence available to the disciplinary authority, with the aim of safeguarding the integrity of the investigation and preventing compromise from the suspended employee’s presence. 9. In O.P. Gupta v. Union of India,3 the Supreme Court has held that a delinquent officer, when placed under suspension, is entitled to a prompt resolution of the departmental proceedings. A delay in completing such proceedings beyond a reasonable period would cause 3(1987) 4 SCC 328 Page 7 of 11 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Designation: AR-CUM-SR. SECRETARY Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 03-Feb-2025 11:39:33 undue prejudice to the employee and render the suspension order untenable. 10. Further, in yet another case travelled from this High Court, the Supreme Court in State of Orissa v. Bimal Kumar Mohanty4 observed that suspension should be based on the gravity of the alleged misconduct and the evidence available before the disciplinary authority. The authority must also determine whether suspension is necessary to prevent further misconduct or to protect the integrity of the investigation. Suspension cannot be imposed automatically and must serve the purpose of facilitating the inquiry. 11. Similar sentiment has been resonated in Union of India v. Ashok Kumar Aggarwal,5 wherein the Supreme Court observed that suspension temporarily prohibits an employee from performing duties but does not terminate the employment relationship or constitute punishment. It is an interim administrative measure, not punitive in nature, even if it may carry stigma in certain cases. The relevant portion is being reproduced hereinunder: “19. During suspension, the relationship of master and servant continues between the employer and the employee. However, the employee is forbidden to perform his official duties. Thus, a suspension order does not put an end to the service. Suspension means the action of debarring for the time being from a function or privilege or temporary deprivation of working in the office. In certain cases, suspension may cause stigma even after exoneration in the departmental proceedings or acquittal by the criminal court, but it cannot be treated as a 41994(4) SCC 126 5(2013) 16 SCC 147 Page 8 of 11 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Designation: AR-CUM-SR. SECRETARY Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 03-Feb-2025 11:39:33 12. 13. 14. 15. punishment even by any stretch of imagination in the strict legal sense. (Vide O.P. Gupta v. Union of India and Capt. M. Paul Anthony v. Bharat Gold Mines Ltd.)” It is further a settled position of law that a suspension order cannot be indefinite, and the departmental proceedings must be concluded within a reasonable time. Continued surpassion has been frowned by the Supreme Court in Union of India and Others v. Dipak Mali,6 wherein it has been observed that if the suspension order is not reviewed within the prescribed ninety days period, or if an extension is not granted, the suspension order becomes invalid. The Court further held that the continued suspension of an employee beyond ninety days without review or extension is impermissible. In the same vein, in Ajay Kumar Choudhury v. Union of India,7 the Supreme Court observed that suspension orders must be reviewed within ninety days, failing which, the suspension becomes invalid and is liable to be set aside. In the present case, the Court finds it necessary to intervene, as the suspension orderdated 08.02.2024, issued against the petitioner, was neither reviewed nor extended within the stipulated 90-day period.Suspension cannot be allowed to persist indefinitely, particularly in the absence of any valid justification for such an extension.Accordingly, the continued suspension of the petitioner is in violation of established legal principles and is consequently invalid. 62010 SCC 2 224 7(2015) 7 SCC 291 Page 9 of 11 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Designation: AR-CUM-SR. SECRETARY Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 03-Feb-2025 11:39:33 16. Furthermore, the petitioner was serving as a Panchayat Executive Officer at the time of the suspension, hence, he was under the disposal of the Panchayat. Hence, the Collector lacks jurisdiction to hand out such punishment. In Nabakishore Mishra v. Collector, Dhenkanal,8 this Court held that the Collector does not have jurisdiction over the services of Village Level Workers (VLWs) posted as Panchayat Executive Officers in the Gram Panchayats. If the VLWs are working under Gram Panchayat as Executive Officers their duties and responsibility with respect of to the duties in the Panchayat and their services within the control of Gram Panchayat and the gram Panchayat may deal with any indiscipline or negligence. 17. Further this court had the occasion to consider a similar issue in Narayan Jena v. State of Odisha & Ors.9 wherein, it was held that the power to take disciplinary action against Panchayat Executive Officers rests with the Gram Panchayat and not with State Officers such as the Collector. 18. This Court, upon careful consideration, is of the view that the facts of the present case clearly warrant judicial intervention. The suspension order passed against the petitioner has, without review or extension, exceeded the prescribed three month period, thereby violating the established principles governing suspension. Furthermore, it is evident that the Collector, Dhenkanal, lacks the requisite authority to suspend the petitioner. 82008 (11)OLR 530 9W.P.(C) No.29084 of 2019 Page 10 of 11 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Designation: AR-CUM-SR. SECRETARY Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 03-Feb-2025 11:39:33 V. 19. 20. 21. CONCLUSION: In light of the foregoing, this Court finds that the Collector, Dhenkanal, lacked the authority to suspend the petitioner. Additionally, the suspension order, having continued beyond ninety days without review, deserves to be quashed and, accordingly, quashed. Accordingly, this Writ Petition is allowed. Interim order, if any, passed earlier stands vacated. (Dr.S.K. Panigrahi) Judge Orissa High Court, Cuttack, Dated the 30th January, 2025/ Page 11 of 11
Arguments
unauthorized absence, fails to substantiate these claims. The order is based on a report dated 07.02.2024 from the BDO, which is quite contradictory, as the petitioner was performing duties as instructed on those very dates. (iii) The petitioner further submitted that, despite the allegations, the said BDO assigned him additional duties as Nodal Officer for Sankulei Gram Panchayat on 08.02.2024 for the implementation of the IEC campaign by cultural troupes. This assignment demonstratesthat the petitioner continued to discharge his duties without any issue. (iv) The petitioner contended that the suspension order violates Rule 12 of the Odisha Civil Service (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 1962, which permits suspension only when disciplinary proceedings are contemplated or pending, or a criminal case is under investigation or trial. No such proceedings have been initiated, and the petitioner is not under any criminal investigation. Page 3 of 11 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Designation: AR-CUM-SR. SECRETARY Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 03-Feb-2025 11:39:33 (v) The petitioner submitted that the suspension order is defective as it fails to specify the period of unauthorized absence not does it alleges any specific violation of the service rule. (vi) The petitioner contended that he was neither provided with the documents nor the evidence forming the basis of the suspension order, nor was he given an opportunity to present his case. The suspension was imposed hastily, without any inquiry, and in violation of the principles of natural justice. (vii) The petitioner has further submitted that the report allegedly received from female devotees on 08.02.2024, which formed the basis of the suspension, appears to be false and fabricated. The BDO could not have reported the alleged indiscipline to the Collector on 07.02.2024, as the complaint was only received on 08.02.2024. This raises serious doubts about the authenticity of the report and the suspension order. (viii) The petitioner has further contended that the respondents claimed a fact-finding committee was constituted and suggested disciplinary action on the same day. However, this raises concerns regarding the authenticity of the fact-finding report, which appears fabricated or ante- dated mechanism to justify the suspension. (ix) The petitioner further stated that more than nine months have passed without any review of the suspension order, causing undue hardship. Further, the petitioner’s representation to the Collector, Dhenkanal remains pending and is yet to be decided. As the order of suspension has not been reviewed for over nine months by the competent authority, it is liable to be set aside. To buttress his argument, the Page 4 of 11 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Designation: AR-CUM-SR. SECRETARY Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 03-Feb-2025 11:39:33 petitioner relied on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Union of India & Others v. Dipak Mali1, wherein it was held that an order of suspension must be reviewed by the competent authority, with a review committee recommending either the extension or revocation of the suspension before the expiry of ninety days. (x) The petitioner further relied on this Court’s judgment in Narayan Jena v. State of Odisha & Others2, wherein it was held that the Collector has no authority to take disciplinary action against a Panchayat Executive Officer, as such authority lies with the Gram Panchayat. (xi) The petitioner submitted that the order of suspension is illegal, unjust, and liable to be quashed, and he should be reinstated in service along with all consequential benefits. 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: The petitioner, assigned as Nodal Officer for Sankulei and Gengutia Gram Panchayats for the ‘Shree Mandir Parikrama Prakalpa,’ failed to report to the GP headquarters by 5:00 AM on 07.02.2024, keeping his phone switched off until 5:40 AM. Instead, he boarded the bus at Dhenkanal Town, causing a delay of 1 hour and 30 minutes in the bus’s departure from the GP headquarters and creating disturbances among the devotees regarding seating arrangements. 1(2010) 2 SCC 222. 2W.P.(C) No.29084 of 2019 Page 5 of 11 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Designation: AR-CUM-SR. SECRETARY Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 03-Feb-2025 11:39:33 (ii) During the return journey, the petitioner, without prior permission, stopped the bus at a Dhaba in Khuntuni around 9:00 PM, where he allegedly consumed food and alcohol with the driver and some male individuals in the presence of female devotees. This caused embarrassment to the female devotees, who contacted the BDO, Sadar Block, Dhenkanal and GPDO. Despite instructions to resume the journey, the petitioner delayed the bus’s departure by 30 minutes. The vehicle resumed its journey only after intervention of the authority and reached the GP at 11:00 PM. A written complaint was subsequently filed by the female devotees against the conduct of the present Petitioner. (iii) On 08.02.2024, the BDO, Sadar Block, Dhenkanal constituted a fact- finding committee, which concluded that the petitioner’s actions, including his inebriated state at the Dhaba, constituted a serious breach of trust and recommended immediate action. The Collector, Dhenkanal, being the disciplinary authority, issued the suspension order dated 08.02.2024 in contemplation of departmental proceedings. The petitioner’s misconduct compromised the safety of the devotees and created a chaotic situation throughout the journey. (iv) Further, the petitioner has also demonstrated consistent irregular attendance at the GP Office, as reported by the Sarpanch of Sankulei G.P. (v) The suspension order was lawfully issued, given the petitioner’s dereliction of duty and misconduct, and departmental proceedings are appropriately being initiated. Page 6 of 11 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Designation: AR-CUM-SR. SECRETARY Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 03-Feb-2025 11:39:33 IV. COURT’S REASONING AND ANALYSIS: 5. 6. 7. Heard the learned counsel for the Parties and perused the materials placed on record. The primary issue that requires adjudication in the instant matter is the legality of the suspension order passed by the Collector, Dhenkanal. In matters concerning suspension, courts generally exercise restraint and refrain from interfering with suspension orders unless it is