Orissa High Court
Case Details
Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Designation: AR-CUM-SR. SECRETARY Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 03-Feb-2025 11:39:33 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C) No.10103 of 2024 (In the matter of an application under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, 1950). …. Petitioner(s) -versus- …. Opposite Party (s) Sushanta Shekhar Das @ Sushanta Sekhar Das The Managing Director, Odisha Civil Supplies Corporation Ltd. (Govt. of Odisha undertaking), Bhubaneswar &Ors. Advocates appeared in the case throughHybrid Mode: For Petitioner(s) For Opposite Party (s) : : Mr.Amitav Das, Adv. Mr. Manoj Kumar Mohanty, ASC CORAM: DR. JUSTICE S.K. PANIGRAHI DATE OF HEARING:-03.01.2025 DATE OF JUDGMENT:-30.01.2025 Dr. S.K. Panigrahi, J. 1. The Petitioner has filed this Writ Petition seeking to quash the order dated 05.01.2024 (communicated on 04.03.2024) issued by the Collector, Sundargarh, as well as the disengagement order dated 03.08.2018 issued by Opp. Party No.3. Additionally, the Petitioner requests a directive to Opp. Party Nos. 2 and 3 to reinstate him as Assistant Programmer in place of Opp. Party No.5 in the office of Opp. Party No.3. Page 1 of 11
Legal Reasoning
Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Designation: AR-CUM-SR. SECRETARY Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 03-Feb-2025 11:39:33 I. FACTUAL MATRIX OF THE CASE: 2. The brief facts of the case are as follows: (i) The petitioner, SushantaShekhar Das, was engaged as an Assistant Programmer at the CSO office in Sundargarh during the Kharif Marketing Season (KMS) 2015-16. He was disengaged from service on 03.08.2018 due to alleged irregularities in the paddy procurement process. (ii) His role involved updating farmer registration data and verifying the accuracy of land details as per the RI (Revenue Inspector) reports. (iii) Irregularities were alleged in updating farmers’ land data, which resulted in farmers’ selling paddy in excess of their actual surplus. This led to financial losses to the government, including excess interest payments on loans taken for MSP (Minimum Support Price) payments. (iv) It was claimed that the petitioner failed to adhere to proper procedures in verifying and updating land data, thereby enabling the discrepancies. (v) Earlier, social activists filed WP(C) No.21639/2016, alleging corruption in the LAMPCs of the Tangarpali Block, and this High Court directed the Collector to investigate the matter. Based on subsequent inquiries, including reports by the DRCS and CSO, the Collector identified irregularities and directed disengagement of the petitioner. (vi) A joint committee was constituted to investigate further. The report, dated 29.01.2019, concluded that there were no irregularities at the CSO level and no financial losses to the government or farmers. However, the opposite parties argued that the joint enquiry report was incomplete Page 2 of 11 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Designation: AR-CUM-SR. SECRETARY Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 03-Feb-2025 11:39:33 and misleading, suppressing crucial facts and overlooking evidence of irregularities. (vii) The petitioner filed multiple writ petitions challenging his disengagement, including WP(C) No.26285/2019 and WP(C) No.25728/2023. This High Court directed fresh adjudication, but the Collector rejected the petitioner’s claims in orders dated 16.07.2020 and 05.01.2024. During the pendency of these proceedings, another individual (Opp. Party No. 5) was appointed to the petitioner’s position, raising allegations of bias and malafide intent. II. SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER: 3. (i) Learned counsel for the Petitioner earnestly made the following submissions in support of his contentions: The orders dated 05.01.2024 and 03.08.2018 are arbitrary, illegal, and passed without proper application of mind. They disregarded the findings of the joint enquiry report, which explicitly found no irregularities. (ii) The Collector failed to appreciate the petitioner’s clarification (dated 27.10.2023) and ignored critical evidence from the joint enquiry report, which absolved the petitioner of any wrongdoing. (iii) The disengagement order was issued without giving the petitioner an opportunity to be heard or a chance to clarify the allegations. Despite multiple representations, the petitioner’s grievances were dismissed without proper consideration. (iv) The appointment of Opp. Party No. 5 to the same position during the pendency of the case suggests ulterior motives and prejudice against the Page 3 of 11 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Designation: AR-CUM-SR. SECRETARY Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 03-Feb-2025 11:39:33 petitioner. The Collector deliberately disregarded the court’s directions and findings of the enquiry report to protect other officers and accommodate their preferred candidate. (v) The enquiry report and subsequent clarifications established that no financial loss occurred to either the government or farmers due to the alleged irregularities. The petitioner’s role as Assistant Programmer did not involve verification of farmers’ land details or paddy procurement, negating any direct responsibility for the alleged discrepancies. (vi) The petitioner, who has served the organization for 16-17 years with a clean service record, has been unfairly targeted and disengaged at the age of 46, with no alternative employment. (vii) The Collector’s failure to disclose the appointment of Opp. Party No. 5 in the rejection order dated 16.07.2020 raises further questions about the fairness and transparency of the process. III. SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE OPPOSITE PARTIES: 4. (i) The Learned Counsel for the Opposite Parties earnestly made the following submissions in support of his contentions: The petitioner’s disengagement was based on findings from multiple investigations and was carried out following due legal procedures. The Collector's order dated 05.01.2024 highlighted the petitioner’s pivotal role in data manipulation, which led to the irregularities. (ii) Two primary documents, the Farmer Registration Status Report and the RI Verification Report, were cited as evidence of discrepancies. The petitioner allegedly ignored discrepancies in RI reports during data Page 4 of 11 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Designation: AR-CUM-SR. SECRETARY Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 03-Feb-2025 11:39:33 updates, enabling farmers to sell surplus paddy beyond their entitlement. (iii) The petitioner did not report challenges or seek guidance from higher authorities, indicating negligence and lack of diligence. Despite being entrusted with sensitive responsibilities, the petitioner failed to ensure accuracy and compliance with government guidelines. (iv) The joint enquiry report was criticized as incomplete and biased, suppressing evidence and failing to identify irregularities at the CSO office. The report allegedly downplayed the petitioner’s role in the discrepancies, leading to misleading conclusions. (v) It is contended that the appointment of Opp. Party No. 5 was carried out transparently and as per legal requirements. The petitioner’s allegations of bias were dismissed as baseless and an attempt to distract from his misconduct. (vi) The financial loss to the government included interest payments on loans taken for excess MSP payments to farmers. These losses were attributed to the petitioner’s alleged manipulation of data. IV. COURT’S REASONING AND ANALYSIS: 5. 6.
Legal Reasoning
Heard Learned Counsel for parties and perused the documents placed before this Court. The crux of the present dispute centres on the petitioner’s disengagement from service following allegations of irregularities in the paddy procurement process. The allegations pertain to discrepancies in updating farmers’ land data, which purportedly enabled farmers to sell Page 5 of 11 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Designation: AR-CUM-SR. SECRETARY Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 03-Feb-2025 11:39:33 paddy quantities exceeding their actual surplus. Subsequent inquiries, including reports prepared by the District Registrar of Cooperative Societies (DRCS) and the Chief Supply Officer (CSO), led the Collector to identify irregularities and order the petitioner’s disengagement. However, a joint committee was later constituted to conduct a more detailed investigation. In its report dated 29.01.2019, the committee found no evidence of irregularities at the CSO level and determined that neither the Government nor had the farmers suffered any financial loss. Relying on this report, the petitioner contends that his disengagement was unwarranted, unlawful, and motivated by mala fide intent. 7. The opposite parties, on the other hand, assert that the joint inquiry report was both incomplete and biased, suppressing critical evidence and failing to properly address the irregularities at the CSO office. They contend that the report understated the petitioner’s involvement in the discrepancies, leading to conclusions that were misleading and lacked impartiality. Despite several orders of this Court directing the Collector to reexamine the petitioner’s claim, the Collector upheld the disengagement order, reasoning that the petitioner’s conduct justified the action taken against him. 8. The question that stands before this Court is whether the Collector’s order may be quashed on the strength of the joint inquiry report and whether the petitioner can be restored to his service. To resolve this, this Court must turn to a principle long embedded in the fabric of administrative law jurisprudence; an inquiry report, while carrying the weight of diligent examination, does not possess the mantle of Page 6 of 11 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Designation: AR-CUM-SR. SECRETARY Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 03-Feb-2025 11:39:33 adjudicatory finality. The conclusions of an inquiry officer are but the opinions drawn from the materials at hand; they hold no binding authority over the disciplinary power vested in the deciding authority. It is this distinction, between recommendation and resolution, that the law jealously preserves. 9. This principle has found voice in numerous decisions of the High Courts and the Supreme Court, reinforcing its centrality to administrative law. A notable affirmation appears in High Court Judicature at Bombay v. Shashikant S. Patil and Anr.,1 where the Supreme Court, with clarity and resolve, declared the following: “The findings of the inquiry officer are only his opinion on the materials, but such findings are not binding on the disciplinary authority as the decision-making authority is the punishing authority and therefore that authority can come to its own conclusion of course bearing in mind the views expressed by the inquiry officer. But it is not necessary that the disciplinary authority should “discuss materials in detail and contest the conclusions of the inquiry officer”. Otherwise the position of the disciplinary authority would get relegated to a subordinate level.” 10. The legal position on this matter has also been articulated with precision by the Supreme Court in the case of A. N. D’Silva v. Union Of India2. The Court, in its wisdom, held that the findings of the inquiry officer, as well as any recommendations offered therein, do not bind the punishing authority. The relevant excerpt of this case is produced below: 12000 (1) SCC 416 21962 AIR 1130 Page 7 of 11 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Designation: AR-CUM-SR. SECRETARY Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 03-Feb-2025 11:39:33 “It is for the punishing authority to propose the punishment and not for the enquiring authority. The latter has, when so required, to appraise the evidence, to record its conclusion and if it thinks proper to suggest the appropriate punishment. But neither the conclusion on the evidence nor the punishment which the enquiring authority may regard as appropriate is binding upon the punishing authority.” 11. If one examines the present case in the illuminating light of the precedents cited, a compelling pattern emerges. The inquiry report, while thorough in its scope, is not the final arbiter of the petitioner’s fate. Its findings, though grounded in evidence, are advisory in character, serving as a guidepost rather than a directive for the disciplinary authority. 12. Ultimately, it lies within the discretion of the Collector, who serves as the appropriate punishing authority in this matter, to determine the extent to which the joint inquiry report should be considered or relied upon. The Collector, after carefully evaluating the evidence presented and weighing the circumstances surrounding the case, reached the conclusion that the petitioner’s disengagement was warranted. 13. The next question before this Court is to ascertain the extent to which judicial interference is warranted in the circumstances of this case. In the realm of Administrative Law, it is a well-settled principle that courts, while exercising judicial review over disciplinary proceedings, are not to re-evaluate the merits of the decision or substitute their judgment for that of the disciplinary authority. Instead, the scope of intervention is confined to examining whether: (i) the inquiry was Page 8 of 11 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Designation: AR-CUM-SR. SECRETARY Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 03-Feb-2025 11:39:33 conducted by a competent authority; (ii) the principles of natural justice were adhered to; and (iii) the findings or conclusions are supported by some evidence, and whether the authority had the power and jurisdiction to arrive at the findings of fact or conclusions in question. 14. This principle has been consistently upheld in a plethora of judicial precedents, reinforcing its foundational role in administrative law. One such landmark case is Deputy General Manager (Appellate Authority) v. Ajai Kumar Srivastava.3The relevant excerpts of this case are produced hereinbelow: “24. It is thus settled that the power of judicial review, of the constitutional courts, is evaluation of the decision-making process and not the merits of the decision itself. It is to ensure fairness in treatment and not to ensure fairness of conclusion. The court/tribunal may interfere in the proceedings held against the delinquent if it is, in any manner, inconsistent with the rules of natural justice or in violation of the statutory rules prescribing the mode of enquiry or where the conclusion or finding reached by the disciplinary authority is based on no evidence. If the conclusion or finding be such as no reasonable person would have ever reached or where the conclusions upon consideration of the evidence reached by the disciplinary authority are perverse or suffer from patent error on the face of record or based on no evidence at all, a writ of certiorari could be issued. To sum up, the scope of judicial review cannot be extended to the examination of correctness or reasonableness of a decision of authority as a matter of fact. 25-27 xx xxxx 28. .... The constitutional court while exercising its jurisdiction of judicial review under Article 226 or Article 136 of the 3(2021) 2 SCC 612. Page 9 of 11 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Designation: AR-CUM-SR. SECRETARY Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 03-Feb-2025 11:39:33 Constitution would not interfere with the findings of fact arrived at in the departmental enquiry proceedings except in a case of mala fides or perversity i.e. where there is no evidence to support a finding or where a finding is such that no man acting reasonably and with objectivity could have arrived at those findings and so long as there is some evidence to support the conclusion arrived at by the departmental authority, the same has to be sustained.” 15. If the principles of the abovementioned case are applied to the case in hand, it becomes clear that the inquiry was conducted by a competent authority in accordance with the prescribed rules. The petitioner was afforded the opportunity to present his defense, fulfilling the essential requirements of natural justice. The Collector, serving as the disciplinary authority, reviewed the evidence, including the inquiry report, and exercised his discretion in determining that the petitioner’s disengagement was justified. This decision was based on evidence presented in the form of reports by the DRCS and CSO and was neither arbitrary nor unsupported by material facts. 16. Consequently, the Collector’s decision to disengage the petitioner, having been reached after a proper appraisal of evidence and in compliance with procedural safeguards, does not warrant interference by this Court. The disciplinary authority acted within its jurisdiction, and its conclusions are supported by evidence that cannot be said to be perverse or arbitrary. Page 10 of 11 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Designation: AR-CUM-SR. SECRETARY Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 03-Feb-2025 11:39:33 V. CONCLUSION: 17. 18. 19. For the reasons stated above, this Court finds no grounds to quash the Collector’s order or to direct the reinstatement of the Petitioner. This Writ Petition is, therefore, dismissed. Interim order, if any, passed earlier stands vacated. (Dr.S.K. Panigrahi) Judge Orissa High Court, Cuttack, Dated the 30th January, 2025/ Page 11 of 11