The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C) No.8292 of 2025 (An application under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India) -------------- Bikram Keshari Sahoo ...… Petitioner -Versus- State of Odisha & Another ..…. Opp. Parties Advocate(s) appeared in this case :- _______________________________________________________ For Petitioner : Mr. Srinivas Mohanty, Advocate For Opp. Parties : Mr. S.S. Routray, [Additional Standing Counsel] _______________________________________________________ CORAM: JUSTICE SASHIKANTA MISHRA JUDGMENT 29th of October, 2025 SASHIKANTA MISHRA, J. The petitioner has filed this writ application with the following prayer:- “The petitioner therefore, prays that your lordship would graciously be pleased to admit this petition, call for the records and after hearing the parties be pleased to quash the rejection order dated 08.01.2025 under Annexure-8; And further, be pleased to direct the the petitioner as authority Accountant-cum-Data Operator Entry (ADEO) based on the Gazette notification to appoint Page 1 of 10 dated 27.02.2024 vis-(cid:224)-vis as per select list dated 21.06.2024; And pass any other and or further order as deemed the circumstances of the case; And the petitioner shall forever prayer as in duty bound.” this act of kindness, fit and proper under for 2.
Legal Reasoning
The facts of the case are that the petitioner was initially appointed as a Gram Rojgar Sevak (GRS) with effect from 08.11.2007 and was posted in Seegarh Gram Panchayat of Pallahara Block in the district of Angul. While working as such, a show cause notice was issued by the Chief Development Officer-cum-Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad, Angul vide letter dated 12.03.2024 asking him to submit his explanation regarding the complaint submitted by one Ranas Garnayak with an audio and video clip allegedly proving that the petitioner was collecting bribe for billing, coding and generation of e-MR for various MGNREGS works in the Gram Panchayat. 3. The petitioner submitted his reply basically stating that the complainant had rivalry with the present Sarpanch and he submitted the complaint against the petitioner out of grudge. The complainant Page 2 of 10 always pressurized the petitioner and created disturbance in his work. The allegation of taking bribe in MGNREGS work was specifically denied. Subsequently, on 18.07.2024 the complainant Ranas Garnayak in a letter addressed to the Collector, Angul withdrew his complaint admitting that he had submitted the same out of apprehension of being put to trouble by the Sarpanch and the petitioner. 4. The complainant also submitted a similar letter to the BDO, Pallahara. The BDO, by letter dated 15.10.2024 certified the performance of the petitioner as satisfactory and free from any complaints. However, the petitioner was not considered for absorption in the regular post of Accountant-cum-Data Entry Operator (ADEO) though, similarly situated persons were granted the benefit. The petitioner therefore, approached this Court in W.P.(C) No.27281 of 2024. By order dated 13.11.2024, this Court granted liberty to the petitioner to submit representation addressed to the Collector, which was to be disposed of within four weeks thereafter. Page 3 of 10 5. Pursuant to such order, the petitioner submitted a detailed representation highlighting the motive of the complainant in submitting the audio and video clips in question and also enclosing the satisfactory performance reports issued in his favour. The Collector, by order dated 08.01.2025 rejected the representation on the ground that the audio visual clips proved the dishonesty of the petitioner. Being aggrieved, the petitioner has filed this writ application with the prayer already quoted herein before. 6. Counter affidavit has been filed by the State authorities (O.P. No.2), inter alia, stating that the petitioner had demanded illegal gratification but to save his skin he created a story stating the entire incident to be an outcome of a friendly joke. The audio and video clips and the narration are sufficient to prove that he had asked for illegal gratification in return for passing one MGNREGS bill. The audio and video was recorded by the locals. The BDO has subsequently submitted a report citing dishonesty in work. In view of the proved Page 4 of 10 allegations against the petitioner, his representation was rightly rejected by the Collector. 7. The petitioner has filed rejoinder reiterating the averments made in the writ application and additionally stating that the matter arising out of the audio/video clips circulated by the complainant Ranas Garnayak was set at rest whereby, the petitioner was warned by the authorities and there has been no further instance of any misconduct committed by him. The BDO has again certified his performance as satisfactory. 8.
Legal Reasoning
Heard Mr. S. Mohanty, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr. S.S. Routray, learned Additional Standing Counsel appearing for the State. 9. Mr. Mohanty submits that the Collector committed gross illegality in relying upon an unverified audio/video clipping, which was neither subjected to forensic analysis nor formed part of any disciplinary proceeding. He further submits that the Collector has not considered the vital fact that the complainant himself had withdrawn the complaint. As such, the Page 5 of 10 impugned order was passed only on suspicion, surmises and conjectures without the allegations being proved in accordance with law. Under such circumstances, denial of the benefit of absorption to the regular post of ADEO cannot be justified. 10. To buttress his contention, Mr. Mohanty cites the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Risal Singh V. State of Haryana & Others AIR 2014 SC 2922 and the case of Sujit Biswas V. State of Assam (2013) 12 SCC 406. Mr. Mohanty concludes his argument by submitting that even assuming that the complaint submitted by the complainant had any real value, it was for him to prove the complaint and not for the petitioner to disprove. 11. Mr. Routray, learned State counsel reiterates the stand taken by the State in the counter affidavit by submitting that though the performance of the petitioner was certified as satisfactory earlier yet, his misconduct was clearly proved by the audio and video clips and therefore, the earlier certificate is of no value. Since, the petitioner was found to have indulged in Page 6 of 10 dishonesty in official work, his representation was rightly rejected. 12. This Court finds that the facts are not disputed. Reading of the impugned order reveals that the Collector has taken note of all relevant facts and that the BDO, Pallahara had submitted performance report of the petitioner as satisfactory. The revised performance report, which was submitted two days after, that is, on 16.03.2024 was found to be over all satisfactory but it was mentioned that ‘the petitioner has been found to be indulging in taking illegal gratification from a beneficiary’. 13. This allegation appears to have emanated from the audio and video clips purportedly submitted by one Ranas Garnayak. The petitioner was called upon to submit his explanation, which he submitted. Interestingly, the complainant himself withdrew the complaint by stating that he had submitted the complaint because of grudge against the Sarpanch for delay in clearing his MGNREGS bills. The fact of withdrawal of the complaint has not been specifically Page 7 of 10 denied by the State in its counter. This vital aspect and the effect it has in the matter has not been considered at all by the Collector, who instead chose to rely upon the audio and video clips, which according to him proved the dishonesty of the petitioner. 14. In the case of Risal Singh (Supra), which related to an act of corruption being revealed in a sting operation carried by a television channel, the Supreme Court refused to accept the same and by relying upon its earlier judgment rendered in the case of Jaswant Singh V. State of Punjab & Others (1991) 1 SCC 362 held as follows:- “the Court, while dealing with the exercise of power as conferred by way of exception under Article 311(2)(b) of the Constitution, opined as follows:- "Clause (b) of the second proviso to Article 311(2) can be invoked only when the authority is satisfied from the material placed before him that it is not reasonably practicable to hold a departmental enquiry. This is clear from the following observation at page 270 of Tulsiram case (AIR 1985 SC 1416) (SCC p.504: (at P. 1479 of AIR) para 130). "A disciplinary authority is not expected to dispense with a disciplinary inquiry lightly or arbitrarily or out of ulterior motives or merely in order to avoid the holding of an inquiry or because the department’s case against the Government servant is weak and must fail". The decision to dispense with the departmental enquiry cannot, therefore, be rested solely on the Page 8 of 10 the concerned authority ipse dixit of the concerned authority. When the satisfaction of is questioned in a Court of law, it is incumbent on those who support the order to show that the satisfaction is based on certain objective facts and is not the outcome of the whim or caprice of the concerned officer". 15. In the case of Sujit Biswas(supra) the Supreme Court held that ‘no penalty can be imposed on suspicion, gossip or conjecture’. In the instant case, we are dealing with the so called audio visual clips circulated by the complainant. The complainant having withdrawn his complaint based on the audio visual clips, this Court finds it difficult to place any reliance on it particularly because the same was never verified or proved to be genuine by any forensic analysis. A mere audio/visual clip irrespective of the source from which it has emanated cannot form the basis of an administrative decision unless it has been scientifically proved and certified to be genuine. 16. The Collector appears to have proceeded somewhat mechanically in accepting the audio visual clips without making the corresponding enquiry with regard to the truth or otherwise of the allegations Page 9 of 10 against the petitioner that have since been withdrawn. Under such circumstances, branding the petitioner as a dishonest employee cannot be justified in any manner whatsoever. Tested on the touchstone of the legal propositions referred above, this Court has no hesitation in holding that the impugned order cannot be sustained in the eye of law. 17. In the result, the writ application is allowed.
Decision
The impugned order is set aside. The Collector, Angul is directed to consider the case of the petitioner for absorption as Odisha Accountant-cum-Data Entry Operator (Method of Recruitment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 2024. A decision be taken in this regard within two months from today. ……..………………….. Sashikanta Mishra, Judge Orissa High Court, Cuttack, The 29th of October, 2025/ Puspanjali Ghadai, Jr. Steno Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: PUSPANJALI GHADAI Designation: Junior Stenographer Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack. Date: 07-Nov-2025 20:06:56 Page 10 of 10