The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P (C ) No.9701 of 2023 Arun Kumar Das … Petitioner Mr. D. Mohapatra, Sr. Adv. along with Mr. A.K. Pradhan,Adv. -versus- State of Odisha & Another … Opp. Parties Mr. A. Pati, ASC CORAM: THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY Order No. 07. 1. This matter is taken up through hybrid mode.
Decision
ORDER 17.09.2025 2. Heard learned counsel appearing for the parties. 3. The present Writ Petition has been filed inter alia challenging order dt.15.3.2023 so passed by Government- Opp. Party No.1 under Anexure-6. Vide the said order, Opp. Party No.1, who happens to be the Disciplinary Authority directed to conduct de-novo inquiry with regard to the charges framed against the Petitioner vide Memorandum dt.23.06.2018 under Anexure-1. 4. Learned Sr. Counsel appearing for the Petitioner along with Mr. A.K. Pradhan, learned counsel contended that Petitioner while in service, faced the proceeding vide Memorandum dt.23.06.2018 under Annexure-1 with various charges. It is contended that after receipt of the charges, Petitioner not only filed his Written Statement of defence under Annexure-2, but also participated in the inquiry. The Inquiry Officer after completing the inquiry, submitted his report vide letter dt.30.12.2019 under Annexure-3 with the following recommendation: “He may be exonerated.” 4.1. It is contended that thereafter Petitioner though was issued with the 1st show-cause on 22.06.2020 under Annexure-4 along with a copy of the inquiry report and Petitioner submitted his reply on 01.07.2020 under Annexure-5, but Opp. Party No.1 passed the impugned order dt.15.03.2023 directing for de-novo inquiry. It is contended that since after receipt of the inquiry report, Petitioner was issued with the 1st show-cause on 22.06.2020 and Petitioner submitted his reply under Annexure-5 on 01.07.2020, there was no occasion to go for de-novo inquiry with passing of the impugned order under Annexure-6. It is accordingly contended that the impugned order is not sustainable in the eye of law. 4.2. It is also contended that because of the interim order passed by this Court on 31.03.2023, further proceeding has not taken place with conduct of de-novo inquiry in the matter. A further submission was also made that the Officer who was appointed to cause de-novo inquiry is no more there, having retired from service in the meantime. 5. Mr. A. Pati, learned Addl. Standing Counsel on the other hand contended that since various charges were framed against the Petitioner vide Memorandum dt.23.06.2018 under Annexure-1, and Inquiry Officer while submitting his report under Annexure-3 opined to exonerate the Petitioner Page 2 of 5 from the charges, the Disciplinary Authority-Opp. Party No.1 after receipt of the Inquiry Report though issued the 1st show-cause under Annexure-4, but after considering the report and the reply so submitted by the Petitioner under Annexure-5, the Disciplinary Authority-Opp. Party No.1 found that the Inquiry Officer has not conducted inquiry properly while recommending to exonerate the Petitioner. 5.1. It is contended that since charges against the Petitioner were very serious, as provided under Rule 15 (9) of the Rules, the Disciplinary Authority has got the power to direct for fresh inquiry by giving reasons. It is also contended that in the impugned order dt.15.03.2023 while directing for de-novo inquiry, the Disciplinary Authority- Opp. Party No.1 indicated the following reasons: IR dated 30.12.2019 1.The of Shri Dukhishyam Paik, the Additional Secretary to Government of the Department of Agriculture & F.E suffers from material irregularity by not giving the findings charge- wise. IAS, 2. The IR dated 30.12.2019 is superficial due to the non-supply of documentary evidence to substantiate the findings therein. 3. The IR dated 30.12.2019 is completely contradictory to the IR dated 07.04.2017 of the FA-cum-AS, DA & FE based on which the proceeding had been instituted. 5.2.It is contended that since Disciplinary Authority found that the inquiry has not been properly conducted, taking into account the seriousness of the charges, Opp. Party No.1 being the Disciplinary Authority is quite competent to direct for de-novo inquiry while recording reason thereof as Page 3 of 5 provided under Rule 15(9) of the Rules. Rule 15(9) of the Rules reads as follows:- (9) The disciplinary authority may for reasons to be recorded by it in writing remit the case to inquiring authority for further inquiry and report and the inquiring authority shall there upon proceed to hold the further inquiry according to the provisions of sub-rule 6 of rule 15 as far as may be. 5.3.Since in the impugned order while directing for de-novo inquiry, Opp. Party No.1 has assigned sufficient reason, no illegality or irregularity can be found with the said order. It is however contended that because of the interim order passed by this Court on 31.01.2023, no further progress could be made and if as contended, the Inquiry Officer so appointed to cause de-novo inquiry has retired, Opp. party No.1 will appoint a fresh inquiry Officer and will proceed in accordance with law. 6. Having heard learned counsel appearing for the parties, considering the submission made and taking into account the charges framed against the Petitioner under Annexure- 1 vis-(cid:224)-vis the report submitted by the Inquiry Officer under Annexure-3 and the provisions contained under Rule-15(9) of the Rules, this Court finds no illegality or irregularity with the impugned order passed by Opp. party No.1 on 15.03.2023 under Annexure-6 directing for de- novo inquiry of the matter. 6.1. As found, when directing for such de-novo inquiry, Opp. Party No.1 has also assigned sufficient reasons which as per the considered view of this Court is just and proper in directing for a de-novo inquiry. It is also the view of this Court that such a power is vested on the Disciplinary Page 4 of 5 Authority in terms of the provisions contained under Rule 15(9) of the Rules. 6.2.In view of the aforesaid analysis, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the impugned order dt.15.03.2023 so passed by Opp. party No.1 under Annexure-6. However, considering the submission made by the learned Sr. Counsel appearing for the Petitioner that Petitioner has retired in the meantime and he is not getting his pensionary benefits, save and except provisional pension, this Court taking into account initiation of the proceeding in the year 2018, direct Opp. party No.1 to dispose of the proceeding in accordance with law from the stage of Rule 15(6) of the Rules with due appointment of an Inquiry Officer. 6.3. Petitioner however is directed to cooperate at every stage of the proceeding and he will not take any unnecessary adjournment. 6.4. With the aforesaid observation and direction, the Writ Petition stands disposed of. (Biraja Prasanna Satapathy) Judge sangita Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: SANGITA PATRA Reason: authenticaition of order Location: high court of orissa, cuttack Date: 23-Sep-2025 14:42:55 Page 5 of 5