The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK WP(C) No.6646 of 2025 Kailash Chandra Behera ..... Petitioner Represented By Adv. - Jajati Keshari Khuntia -versus- 1) State Of Odisha 2) Engineer-in-chief, Water Resources 3) Executive Engineer(civil) , Operation Div, Water Resources ..... Opposite Parties Represented By Adv. – Ms. S.Mohanty, A.S.C. CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADITYA KUMAR MOHAPATRA Order No.
Decision
ORDER 11.03.2025 01. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual /Physical Mode). 2. Heard learned counsel for the Petitioner as well as learned Additional Standing Counsel for the State-Opposite Parties. Perused the writ application as well as documents annexed thereto. 3. The Petitioner has filed the present writ application with the following prayer: “It is therefore prayed that this Hon’ble Court may be graciously pleased to admit the writ application, issue Rule NISI, calling upon the opp.parties to show cause as to why the impugned departmental proceeding under Annexure-1 shall not be quashed and if the opp. parties fail to show cause or show insufficient cause make the said Rule be absolute. And the Hon’ble Court may issue a writ of certiorari quashing the departmental proceeding under Annexure - 1 which is pending for last 22 years. And further direction may be issued to release final pension Page 1 of 5. and pensionary benefits in favour of the petitioner within a time stipulated by the Hon’ble Court. And pass any other order/orders, direction/directions as would be deem fit and proper as facts and circumstances of the case.” 4. It is stated by the learned counsel for the petitioner that while the petitioner was working as a Junior Engineer under the Water Resources Department Govt. of Odisha, he was posted at Machhkund Hydro Electrical Project, Jalapur in the district of Koraput. He further contended that a disciplinary proceeding was initiated against the present petitioner vide memorandum dated 26.02.2003. Thereafter, the petitioner submitted an application before the authorities and sought for copies of the document relied upon by the department vide the aforesaid memorandum, by his application dated 28.03.2003. The department could not provide such documents to the petitioner and the matter remains as such. On 04.01.2014 another show cause notice was issued to the petitioner directing the petitioner to file his reply on 30.01.2024, following which the petitioner submitted his show cause reply. Thereafter, the proceeding continued and the same was finalised by imposing punishment upon the petitioner vide order dated 08.08.2017 passed by the Opposite Party No.1. 5. Being aggrieved by order dated 08.08.2017, imposing punishment of the petitioner in the disciplinary proceeding, the petitioner approach the tribunal by filing O.A. No.281 of 2018 initially. Thereafter, after abolition of the tribunal the O.A. was transferred to this Court and renumbered as W.P.(OAC) No.281 of 2018. In the aforesaid writ petition the petitioner has challenged the order imposing punishment dated 08.08.2017 on the ground that petitioner has not been provided with the documents relied upon by the department vide the memorandum charges. A coordinate bench of Page 2 of 5. this vide order dated 19.10.2023 was pleased to quash the order imposing punishment dated 08.08.2017 and while disposing of the writ application a further direction was given to the opposite parties to restart the disciplinary proceeding from the stage of filing of the written statement of the defence. Learned coordinate bench was also directed to provide the petitioner the copies of the documents as prayed for by the petitioner in his application under Annexure-2 within a period of three weeks and the petitioner was granted four weeks’ time thereafter to file his written statement of defence and the inquiry was directed to be concluded in a time bound manner. Learned counsel for the petitioner at this juncture contended that despite such order dated 31.07.2023 by the learned coordinate bench of this Court, the document prayed for by the petitioner under Annexure-2 to the writ application has not been supplied to him. He further contended that vide letter dated 04.07.2024 under Annexure- 12, the petitioner has been supplied with his 3 documents out of 11 documents which has been relied upon by the department and copies of which has been sought for by the petitioner for purpose of the preparation of his written statement of defence. In the aforesaid factual background learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that in the absence of those documents the petitioner has not been able to file his written statement of defence. He further contended that taking into consideration the fact that the proceeding is of the year 2003 and in the meantime the petitioner has retired from service on attaining the age of superannuation, any further continuance of the disciplinary proceeding shall not been in the larger interest of justice. 6. Learned counsel for the State on the other hand contended that pursuant to the order passed by the learned coordinate bench in the Page 3 of 5. present writ application some of the documents have already been provided to the petitioner vide letter dated 04.07.2024 under Annexure-12. She further contended that in the event the petitioner has approached the Opposite Party No.2, other documents as per under Annexure-2 shall also be provided to the petitioner. He further contended that the petitioner may be directed to submit his written statement of defence for an early conclusion of the pending inquiry otherwise the same may be prolonged once again. In such view of the matter, learned counsel for the state submitted that present writ application is devoid of merit and accordingly the same deserves no consideration by this Court. 7. Considering such submissions made by the learned counsels for both sides, on a careful examination of the materials on record, further taking note of the nature of grievance involved in the present writ application, this Court deems it proper to dispose of the writ application at the stage of admission by directing the petitioner to approach the Opposite party No.2 along with a copy of today’s order. The Opposite Party No.2 shall ensure that the documents which have been relied upon in the memorandum of his charges, the copies of which have been sought for by the petitioner under Annexure-2 to the writ application, be provided to the petitioner within a period of four weeks from today. In the event such documents are provided within the aforesaid time, the petitioner shall furnish his written statement of defence within two weeks thereafter. Further, every endeavour shall be made by the parties to conclude the proceeding as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of three months from the date of communication of copy of this order. It is further made clear that in the event the Opposite Parties fail to provide the documents within a Page 4 of 5. period of four weeks as has been directed hereinabove, it shall be construed that the proceeding against the petitioner has come to an end and accordingly, necessary follow up steps be taken to release the retiral benefits as well as pensionary benefits as is due and admissible to the petitioner. 8. With the aforesaid observations and directions, the writ application stands disposed of. 9. Issue urgent certified copy of this order as per Rules. ( A.K. Mohapatra ) Judge Rubi Page 5 of 5. Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: RUBI BEHERA Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Date: 18-Mar-2025 17:20:43