The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK WP(C) No. 8446 of 2022 Tularam Naik ..... Union of India & Ors. ..... -versus- Petitioner Mr. S.P. Mishra, Sr. Advocate along with Mr. R. Agrawal, Advocate Opposite Parties Mr. A.K. Mohanty, Sr. Panel Counsel (Opp. Party Nos. 1 to 4) Mr. R. Sharma, Advocate (Opp. Party No. 5) THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY CORAM:
Decision
ORDER 01.09.2025 Order No. 03 1. This matter is taken up through hybrid mode. 2. Heard Mr. S.P. Mishra, learned Sr. Counsel appearing for the Petitioner along with Mr. R. Agrawal, learned counsel, Mr. A.K. Mohanty, learned Sr. Panel Counsel appearing for Opp. Party Nos. 1 to 4 and Mr. R. Sharma, learned counsel appearing for Opp. Party No. 5. 3. The present writ petition has been filed inter alia with the following prayer:- “It is therefore prayed that your Lordships may graciously be pleased to admit the writ petition, issue rule NISI in the form of writ of certiorari/mandamus, calling upon the opposite parties to show cause as to why: a. the order dated 20.12.2021 at Annexure-15 shall not be set-asided/quashed; Page 1 of 5. b. the entire disciplinary proceeding initiated against the Petitioner on frivolous ground shall not be dropped; And, in the event the opposite parties fail to show cause or show sufficient cause the said rule be made absolute and: a. the order dated 20.12.2021 at Annexure-15 be set- aside/quashed; b. the entire disciplinary proceeding initiated against the Petitioner on frivolous grounds be dropped. And, may pass any other writ(s), order(s), direction(s), relief(s) as deemed fit and proper; And, for this act of kindness the Petitioner shall in duty bound ever pray.” 4. It is contended that in the disciplinary proceeding initiated against the Petitioner vide Memorandum dtd.22.01.2020 under Annexure-2, Petitioner duly filed his written submission of defence and participated in the enquiry. After submission of the enquiry report, Petitioner was issued with the notice on 26.08.2021 under Annexure- 11 and thereafter another notice on 06.09.2021 under Annexure-12 with a request to give his reply to the finding of the Enquiry Officer. 4.1. It is contended that Petitioner though filed a detailed reply under Annexure-14 on 25.09.2021 before Opp. Party No. 1, but without taking into consideration the reply so made under Annexure-14, Petitioner was imposed with the punishment vide the impugned order dtd.20.12.2021 under Annexure-15. 4.2. Learned Sr. Counsel appearing for the Petitioner contended that since reply given under Annexure-14 to the notice issued under Annexure-11 & 12, was never taken into consideration while Page 2 of 5. disposing the proceeding with passing of the impugned order of punishment under Annexure-15, the said order is not sustainable in the eye of law and it requires interference of this Court. 5. Mr. A.K. Mohanty, learned Sr. Panel Counsel appearing for the Opp. Party Nos. 1 to 4 basing on the stand taken in the counter affidavit, contended that against the impugned order of punishment, Petitioner has preferred an appeal vide Annexure-R/16 and during pendency of the appeal, Petitioner since has moved this Court, this writ petition is not maintainable. 6. To the submission made by the learned Sr. Panel Counsel, learned Sr. Counsel appearing for the Petitioner contended that the said appeal in the meantime has been rejected without assigning any reason, vide a communication issued on 15.06.2022 (copy of the communication so produced in Court be kept in record). It is accordingly contended that since the appeal preferred by the Petitioner has been rejected by a non-speaking order, the same cannot be treated as due disposal of the appeal. However, it is contended that since the reply given to the finding of the enquiry officer under Annexure-14 was never taken into consideration with issuance of 2nd show-cause proposing the punishment, the disposal of the proceeding with passing of the impugned order by Opp. Party No. 1 is not sustainable in the eye of law. 6.1. It is also contended that non-consideration of the reply under Annexure-14 is admitted in the counter affidavit so filed by Opp. Party Nos. 1 to 4 under Para 12(p). Para 12(p) of the counter reads as follows:- “(p) Since the reply of the Petitioner was not made available to the Disciplinary Authority and as there was no such Page 3 of 5. statutory requirement under para 10 of Schedule III under Regulation 33 of the CMPF Regulations, 1964 to provide an opportunity to the Petitioner to make representation on the major penalty proposed to be imposed on him by the Disciplinary Authority, the file of the Petitioner was put up for further action on 14.10.2021.” 7. Having heard learned counsel appearing for the Parties and considering the submissions made, this Court finds that in the proceeding initiated against the Petitioner vide Memorandum dtd.22.01.2020 under Annexure-2, after submission of the enquiry report, Petitioner was issued with the notice under Annexure-11 & 12 to give his reply to the finding of the Enquiry Officer. As found, Petitioner gave a detailed reply before Opp. Party No. 1 on 25.09.2021 under Annexure-14. But as found the same has not been taken into consideration while disposing the proceeding with imposition of the punishment vide the impugned order dtd.20.12.2021 under Annexure-15. 7.1. It is also found from the counter affidavit that Petitioner’s reply dtd.15.09.2021 has not been taken into consideration as the same was not made available to the disciplinary authority. 7.2. Since the reply made to the enquiry report by the Petitioner on 15.09.2021 under Annexure-14, as admitted was never placed before the disciplinary authority, prior to passing of the impugned order, this Court on that ground is inclined to quash the same. While quashing the impugned order dt.20.12.2021 so issued by Opp. Party No. 1 under Annexure-15, this Court remits the matter to Opp. Party No. 1 to proceed with the matter in accordance with law taking into account the reply submitted by the Petitioner on 15.09.2021 under Annexure- 14. This Court directs Opp. Party No. 1 to take a fresh decision as Page 4 of 5. directed within a period of two (2) months from the date of receipt of this order with due communication to the Petitioner. 8. The writ petition is disposed of accordingly with the aforesaid observation and direction. (BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY) Judge Sneha Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: SNEHANJALI PARIDA Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Date: 03-Sep-2025 13:08:29 Page 5 of 5.