The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C) No.9774 of 2025 Ruby Dash …. Petitioner Ms. Sailabala Jena, Advocate -versus- Union of India and others …. Opp. Parties Mr. P.K. Parhi, D.S.G.I. along with Mr. S.C.D. Dash, C.G.C. CORAM: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE S.K. SAHOO THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE CHITTARANJAN DASH Order No. ORDER 10.04.2025 01. This matter is taken up through Hybrid arrangement (video conferencing/physical mode).
Legal Reasoning
Mr. Soubhagya Chandra Dev Dash, learned Central Government Counsel files a memo of appearance on behalf of the opposite parties, which is taken on record. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Central Government Counsel for the opposite parties. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner Ruby Dash challenging the order dated 29.10.2024 passed by the learned Central Administrative Tribunal, Cuttack Bench, Cuttack in O.A. No.19 of 2024. Page 1 of 6 It appears that the petitioner filed the aforesaid O.A. with the following prayers:- “(i) It is therefore most respectfully prayed that, this Honorable Tribunal may be pleased to direct to the Respondents, particularly to Respondent No.2 The Director of Postal Services, (H.Q.), O/o- The Chief P.M.G., Odisha Circle, Bhubaneswar to supply the copy of content of the call recording and phonic conversation stored in the Pen Drive as per Listed Document at Sl. No.57 in Annexure-III of Memorandum of Charges as requisitioned in Annexure-A/3; (ii) This Honorable Tribunal may also be pleased to pass any other further order/orders as deemed fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case. It appears that vide order dated 19.01.2024, while allowing time to the respondents to file the reply to the Original Application, by way of ad interim measure, the respondents were directed not to take any coercive action against the applicant till next date. M.A. No.292 of 2024 was filed by the respondents to vacate the ad interim order, wherein in paragraph no.3, it is stated as follows:- “3. That, it is humbly submitted that the impugned document i.e. the copy of content Page 2 of 6 of the call recording and phonic conversation stored in the Pen Drive as per Listed Document at Sl. No.57 of the Annexure-III of the memorandum of charges has already been supplied to the applicant vide Office of the Chief PMG letter No.Vig/9-1(4)/2022 dated 29.01.2024 and the same was received by the applicant on 05.02.2024. As such, the prayer of the applicant has already been complied with thus the OA itself has become infructuous. A copy of the acknowledgment of the applicant is annexed herewith as Annexure-R/1.” Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that under Annexure-A/3, which is annexed to the Original Application, the petitioner submitted a representation before the Director of Postal Services (HQs) praying therein to supply documents viz.; (i) supply of Pen Drive as per the Listed Document Sl. No.57 in Annexure-III of the charge memo, (ii) transcript of the conversation between her and Sri Sudhanshu Kumar Acharya and (iii) copy of the authentication certificate obtained from the competent Authority as required under law. However, the contention was raised that the authentication certificate has not been supplied to the petitioner and therefore, till the supply of the authentication certificate, the interim order should be allowed to continue. Page 3 of 6 Learned Tribunal taking note of the submission and after perusing the report has been pleased to observe that since the main prayer of the petitioner, the applicant in the O.A. was to direct the respondents to supply the call recording and phonic conversation stored in the Pen Drive as per listed document at Sl. No.57 and the same has already been supplied, which is not disputed by the petitioner, there remains nothing to be adjudicated in the Original Application. Accordingly, the M.A. No.292 of 2024 filed by the respondents was allowed and the ad interim order dated 19.01.2024 was vacated and the O.A. was also disposed of as infructuous. Ms. Sailabala Jena, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that in view of the averments taken in the M.A., it is clear that even though the petitioner has sought for three documents including the Pen Drive but only the Pen Drive has been supplied not the other two documents and therefore, the order of the learned Tribunal is not sustainable in the eye of law. Learned Central Government Counsel, on the other hand, supported the impugned order and submitted that in the relief portion, it is specifically mentioned for supply of only the Pen Drive. Nothing has been stated about the other two documents, which are there in Annexure-A/3 and therefore, when the said Pen Drive has already been supplied, which is not disputed Page 4 of 6 by the petitioner, the further prayer of the petitioner to supply her the other two documents should not be considered. Considering the submissions made by the learned counsel for the respective parties, we are of the view that mere non-supply of document sought for by the delinquent employee in course of disciplinary enquiry does not in itself amount to non-effective representation unless the manner of prejudice that would ensue is pleaded. In the instant case, while admitted the respondents supplied the document prayed for by the petitioner in her prayer she failed to account for the manner of prejudice he would undergo for non-supply of other documents which she demanded passively not insisting the same in the Original Application before the learned Central Administrative Tribunal. Keeping in view the fact that the prayer of the petitioner has been duly taken care of by the respondents by supplying the Pen Drive, non-supply of other documents pointed later by the petitioner, not relied upon by the respondents against the petitioner may well be taken advantage of by the petitioner in accordance with law in the disciplinary proceeding itself. Hence, while we do not find it proper to express any opinion on the aforesaid claim of the petitioner, we find no illegality or infirmity in the order impugned and the same stands confirmed. Page 5 of 6 Accordingly, the writ petition being devoid of merits, stands dismissed. Urgent certified copy of this order be granted on proper application. Judge ( S.K. Sahoo) Judge ( Chittaranjan Dash) RKM Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: RABINDRA KUMAR MISHRA Reason: Authentication Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACK Date: 11-Apr-2025 18:53:13 Page 6 of 6