The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C) No.6215 of 2023 Ajay Kumar Mohanty …. Petitioner Mr. H.M. Dhal, Advocate State of Odisha -versus- …. Opposite Party Mr. A. Tripathy, AGA CORAM: JUSTICE BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY Order No. ORDER 03.09.2025 05. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual/Physical) Mode.
Legal Reasoning
2. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 3. The present Writ Petition has been filed inter alia challenging order of punishment passed on 08.02.2023 by the Sole Opp. Party under Annexure-8. Vide the said order, while disposing the proceeding initiated against the petitioner vide Memorandum dated 25.02.2022 under Annexure-2 series, petitioner was imposed with the punishment to the following effect:- “Withholding of promotion till his retirement.” 4.
Legal Reasoning
Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that in the proceeding so initiated vide Memorandum dated 25.02.2022 under Annexure-2 series, petitioner not // 2 // only filed his written statement of defence under Annexure-3 but also participated in the enquiry. 4.1. It is contended that the Enquiry Officer after conducting the enquiry, while submitting the report under Annexure-6, gave the following recommendation:- “On going through the contents of the Disciplinary Proceeding framed u/r 15 of the OCS(CC&A) Rules, 1962, Written Statement of Defence submitted by the Delinquent Officer, Depositions made by the Delinquent Officer and the Marshalling Officer, the documents relied upon by the Delinquent Officer, I am satisfied to hold the Disciplinary Proceeding are not established against the Delinquent Officer, Ajay Kumar Mohanty, Ex-Deputy Secretary, Commer and Transport (Commerce) Dept., presently working as Deputy Secretary in Agriculture & FE Dept. for which he may be exonerated. that charges as made in this, With the enquiry of the D.P. Case No.27/2022 arising the Memorandum No.6265/OSS dt.25.02.2022 of Home Department is completed. My report along with other relevant documents be forwarded to the Addl. Chief Secretary to Government, Home Department for necessary action.” out of 4.2. It is contended that on receipt of the Enquiry Report, petitioner was issued with the 1st show cause and petitioner gave his reply on 04.11.2022 under Annexure-7 by accepting the finding of the Enquiry Officer. However, without issuing the 2nd show cause as provided under Rule-15(10)(i)(b) of the OCS(CCA) Rules, 1962 (In short “Rules”), the Disciplinary Authority-O.P. No.1 straight away while finalizing the proceeding, imposed the punishment as indicated hereinabove vide Page 2 of 6 // 3 // the impugned order dated 08.02.2023 under Annexure- 8. 4.3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that since in terms of the provisions contained under Rule- 15(10)(i)(b) of the Rules, no 2nd show cause was issued proposing the punishment to be imposed with the dis- agreement note, the impugned order of punishment passed against the petitioner is a nullity in the eye of law. 4.4. It is also contended that because of the impugned order of punishment, petitioner was deprived to get the benefit of promotion, which was kept in a sealed cover in terms of the recommendation made by the DPC held on 07.12.2022 under Annexure-9. It is accordingly contended that the impugned
Decision
order requires interference of this Court. 5. Learned Addl. Govt. Advocate on the other hand made his submission basing on the stand taken in the counter affidavit. It is contended that in the proceeding initiated against the petitioner vide Annexure-2, after receipt of the Enquiry Report, petitioner was issued with the 1st show cause on 31.10.2022 and petitioner submitted his reply on 04.11.2022 under Annexure-7. 5.1. Since the punishment to be imposed i.e. withholding of promotion till his retirement is not a prescribed punishment under Rule-13 of the Rules, the Page 3 of 6 // 4 // Disciplinary Authority thought it proper not to issue any 2nd show cause and accordingly finalized the proceeding with imposition of the punishment in question. Stand taken in Para-4(vii) of the counter reads as follows:- “4(vii) Rule I5(l0)(i)(b) of OCS (CC&A) Rules, 1962, provides as follows; "On receipt of the representation referred to in sub clause (a) if the disciplinary authority having regards to the findings on the charges, is of the opinion that any of the penalties specified in clauses (vi) to (ix) of rule 13 should be imposed, he shall furnish to the delinquent Government servant a statement of its findings along with brief reasons for disagreement, if any, with the findings of the inquiring officer and give him a notice by Registered post or otherwise stating the penalty proposed to be imposed on him and calling upon him to submit within a specified time such representation as he may wish to make against the proposed penalty"; As the proposed tentative penalty of “withholding of promotion till his retirement” on the delinquent officer by the Disciplinary Authority does not come under any of the penalties specified in clauses (vi) to (ix) of rule-13 of OCS(CCA) rules, 1962, hence the proposed penalty was not intimated to the delinquent officer. Thus, there is no requirement under law to issue a show cause notice to the delinquent if a major penalty is not being imposed. to Rule-15(10)(i)(b) of Hence, as per proviso OCS(CC&A) Rules, 1962, advice of Odisha Public Service Commission was sought for on the proposed penalty along with all relevant documents Home Department Letter No.567 dated 03.01.2023.” 5.2. It is contended that since the punishment to be imposed on the petitioner was not prescribed under Rule-13 of the Rules, no 2nd show-cause was required to be issued. It is also contended that while imposing the punishment vide the impugned order, Disciplinary Page 4 of 6 // 5 // Authority clearly disagreed with the finding of the Enquiry Report and accordingly imposed the punishment. It is accordingly contended that no illegality or irregularity can be found with the impugned order of punishment passed against the petitioner. 6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and considering the submissions made, this Court finds that petitioner while continuing as Deputy Secretary under the Govt. in the Commerce and Transport Department, proceeding in question was initiated against him vide Memorandum dated 25.02.2022 under Annexure-2 series. As further found, after completion of the enquiry, Enquiry Officer submitted the report under Annexure-6 with the finding that petitioner is required to be exonerated from the charges. It is not disputed that the proceeding in question was initiated under Rule-15 of the Rules. 6.1. Since the proceeding was initiated under Rule-15 of the Rules, it is the view of this Court that without issuing the 2nd show-cause as provided under Rule- 15(10)(i)(b) of the Rules along with the dis-agreement note, no order of punishment could have been imposed on the petitioner. 6.2. Since from the records it is quite evident that no such 2nd show-cause was issued and it has also been Page 5 of 6 // 6 // clearly admitted by the Opp. Party in its counter, on the ground of non-compliance of the said statutory provision, this Court is of the view that the proceeding could not have been finalized with imposition of the punishment. Since such statutory provision has not been followed, this Court is inclined to quash the impugned order of punishment passed against the petitioner vide order dated 08.02.2023 under Annexure-8. While quashing the said order, this Court allows the Writ Petition. 7. The Writ Petition accordingly stands disposed of. (Biraja Prasanna Satapathy) Judge Basudev Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BASUDEV SWAIN Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Date: 08-Sep-2025 14:47:02 Page 6 of 6