Kodanda Bhuyan … v. ….. Opposite Parties Mr. P.K. Parhi, DSGI along with Mr. P.S. Nayak, Sr. Panel
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK CONTC No. 735 of 2019 Kodanda Bhuyan ….. Petitioner In Person K.V. Choudhury Vs. ….. Opposite Parties Mr. P.K. Parhi, DSGI along with Mr. P.S. Nayak, Sr. Panel Counsel, Govt. of India Ms. P. Rath, Adv.[CVO, NALCO] Order No. 13. CORAM:
Decision
ORDER 08.05.2023 This matter is taken up through hybrid mode. 2. Heard Mr. Kodanda Bhuyan, the petitioner in person, Mr. P.K. Parhi, learned Dy. Solicitor General of India appearing along with Mr. P.S. Nayak, learned Sr. Panel Counsel, Govt. of India and Ms. Pami Rath, learned counsel for opposite party-contemnor, CVO, NALCO. 3. The petitioner has filed this contempt petition alleging non- compliance of the order dated 08.02.2019 passed in W.P.(C) No. 2780 of 2010, by which direction has been given to opposite part no.1 to consider and dispose of the representation of the petitioner under Annexure-2 within a period of eight weeks. 4. As it appears, the grievance of the petitioner is that the order of this Court has not been complied with even though more than four years have been passed in the meantime. It is also contended that this is a mockery of the Court, as because the order passed by this Court has not been adhered to by the officer of the Union of India as well as the NALCO. Considering the grievance made by the petitioner, this Court vide order dated 16.01.2023 directed the opposite party-contemnor to file an affidavit reflecting the statutory provision whereby the C.V.O., NALCO would be competent authority to decide the complaints of the petitioner instead of Central Vigilance Commissioner. As such, taking Page 1 of 4 into consideration the same, this Court, vide order dated 27.04.2023 directed for personal appearance of the K.V. Choudhury, CVO, NALCO on 08.05.2023 and file show cause as to why a contempt proceeding shall not be initiated against him for violation of the order passed by this Court. In compliance of the same, Somanath Hansdah, who is presently working as CVO, NALCO has appeared in person and filed an affidavit indicating that the complaint of the petitioner has already been acceded to and the same has already been disposed of vide order dated 24.07.2019. But nothing has been placed on record to indicate that the same has been communicated to the petitioner and also nothing has been indicated with regard to manner of conducting the inquiry to reach such conclusion as mentioned in Annexure-1 to the affidavit filed today. When this Court called upon the contemnor to explain as to how he has conducted the inquiry and if the order has been passed why the same has not been communicated to the petitioner, Somanath Hansdah, CVO, NALCO explained the fact that he was not a party in the writ petition as well as in the contempt petition. But pursuant to the affidavit filed by the opposite parties, wherein at paragraphs-7 and 8 it has been brought to the notice of the Court that CVO, NALCO is the competent authority, and, as such, when such information was received, immediately he himself verified the records and it appeared that on 24.07.2019 the grievance of the petitioner has already been meted out, but no communication has been made. Thereafter, immediately communication was made to the petitioner on 30.04.2023 by communicating the same to the Director, CVC, as the file has been routed through him to the CVO, NALCO. It is also contended that the inquiry has been conducted on the basis of the collecting data and information from the respective departments and, thereafter the conclusion has been arrived at. As a consequence thereof, communication has been made to the petitioner by the CVC to the Page 2 of 4 petitioner. 5. The petitioner has also made a grievance before this Court with regard to method of treatment by the officers to a responsible counsel of this Court. It is contended that when he approached the authority for compliance of the direction given by this Court, he was not attended to by the officers properly and, as such, their behaviour towards the petitioner was absolutely in-conducive. Therefore, he has been grossly aggrieved by the behaviour of the public servant, who is in the helm of affairs and carrying the responsibility to protect the interest of the general public. 6. Needless to say, when the officers are discharging their responsibilities they must know and realize that they are the servants of the people and they cannot behave as the master of any public. Rather, the public should be given proper attention by the officers for the purpose they have approached them, because they are the officers and are getting their salary from out of the taxpayer’s money. As such, they are discharging their duty for the betterment of the public and they cannot behave like King, rather, they should behave like servants of the general public by showing proper conduct so that the public must not have any grievance against the concerned officers. If the officers behave erratically and if they do not devote considerable length of time to consider the grievance of the general public, it will have a very bad impact on the society. Thereby, steps should have been taken to look into the grievance of the general public at large without causing any harassment to them and give attention to the public so that the purpose of their employment can be justified. The way the petitioner has expressed his feelings and the way the officers have conducted themselves towards the petitioner, who is none else but a responsible officer of this Court and nonetheless an advocate, the same should not be repeated in future and, as such, this Court cautioned to the public Page 3 of 4 servants to conduct themselves properly. In any case, since the order of this Court has been complied with, in view of the affidavit filed in Court today by the CVO, NALCO, the contempt proceeding is hereby dropped. However, if any cause of action is left out, the petitioner is at liberty to approach the appropriate forum in accordance with law. 7. Mr. P.K. Parhi, learned Dy. Solicitor General of India appearing along with Mr. P.S. Nayak, learned Sr. Panel Counsel, Govt. of India undertakes to supply all the letters to the petitioner which he wanted for the purpose of utilization within a period of three days. 8. The personal appearance of Somanath Hansdah, CVO, NALCO is dispensed with. (DR. B.R. SARANGI) JUDGE (M.S. RAMAN) JUDGE Ashok ASHOK KUMAR JAGADEB MOHAPATRA Digitally signed by ASHOK KUMAR JAGADEB MOHAPATRA Date: 2023.05.09 16:34:08 +05'30' Page 4 of 4