The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK WP(C) No.13449 of 2025 Suchismita Maharana ..... Petitioner Represented By Adv. – Mr. Laxmi Prasad Dwivedy -versus- State of Odisha and others ..... Opposite Parties Represented By Adv. – Ms. B.K. Sahu, AGA
Legal Reasoning
CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADITYA KUMAR MOHAPATRA Order No.
Decision
ORDER 24.07.2025 02. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual /Physical Mode). 2. Heard Mr. K.P. Mishra, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Petitioner as well as learned counsel for the State. Perused the writ petition as well as the documents annexed thereto. 3. By filing the present writ petition, the Petitioner calls in question the order dated 12.03.2025 passed by the Appellate Authority i.e. Commissioner, CT & GST, Odisha, Cuttack, Opposite Party No.2 under Annexure-16 to the writ petition. 4. Learned Senior counsel appearing for the Petitioner, at the outset, contended that the Petitioner, who is working as a Junior Assistant under the Opposite Party No.3, was placed under Page 1 of 5. suspension on 10.09.2019 and she was asked to show cause by the Opposite Party No.3. The Petitioner submitted her show cause before Opposite Party No.3 on 16.09.2019. The Opposite Party No.3, who happens to be Disciplinary Authority, issued a Memo of Charge to the Petitioner and a disciplinary proceeding was initiated against the Petitioner. Accordingly, an enquiry officer was also appointed on 17.09.2019 to inquiry into allegations against the Petitioner. 5. The pleadings of the writ petition further reveals that Search Committee, which was appointed to look into the matter, had submitted their findings before the Deputy Commissioner, CT & GST, CT & GST Circle, Puri on 21.09.2019 after conducting a physical inquiry in the office of the Petitioner and others. Accordingly, Deputy Commissioner submitted the report before the Opposite Party No.3. On the basis of such report submitted by the Search Committee, an additional charge was framed against the present Petitioner. The Petitioner filed her written statement of defence to the charges. Finally, the Disciplinary Authority imposed punishment vide order dated 19.08.2020 under Annexure-14. As per the order under Annexure-14, the Petitioner was imposed with the punishment of demotion from Senior Assistant to Junior Assistant, recovery of loss of revenue to the tune of Rs.7,23,536/- from the pay of the Petitioner, entire suspension period be treated as such and the pay of the Petitioner was fixed in the scale of Junior Assistant. 6. Being aggrieved by the order dated 19.08.2020 under Annexure-14, the Petitioner preferred an appeal before the Page 2 of 5. Appellate Authority, i.e. Opposite Party No.2. A copy of the appeal memo has been annexed to the writ petition as Annexure-15. On a close scrutiny of the appeal memo, it is observed that the Petitioner has taken several grounds in her appeal memo by assailing the order passed by the Disciplinary Authority imposing punishment. The Appellate Authority, it seems, has disposed of the appeal by passing an innocuous order under Annexure-16 to the writ petition. Being aggrieved by such order of the Appellate Authority, the Petitioner has approached this Court by filing the present writ petition. 7. Mr. K.P. Mishra, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Petitioner further contended that the order passed by the Disciplinary Authority has been assailed in appeal by the Petitioner on several grounds. However, the Appellate Authority has disposed of the appeal without discussing the grounds raised by the Petitioner in the appeal memo. At this juncture, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Petitioner alleged that the impugned order has been passed without application of mind and without complying with the basic requirements that the appropriate authority is required to give reason while disposing of the appeal. He further argued that the fundamental principle of law provides that while considering an appeal, the Appellate Authority is required to consider the same by taking into consideration the grounds raised in the appeal memo. However, no such discussion has been made in the order passed by the Appellate Authority. On the aforesaid grounds, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Petitioner contended that the order under Annexure-16 is not Page 3 of 5. sustainable in law. 8. Learned counsel for the State, on the other hand, contended that the appeal preferred by the Petitioner has been disposed by the Appellate Authority vide order dated 12.03.2025 under Annexure-16 to the writ petition. She further contended that the Appellate Authority is satisfied with regard to the order passed by the Disciplinary Authority and such satisfaction has been recorded in order dated 12.03.2025 under Annexure-16 passed by the Appellate Authority. She further argued that the Appellate Authority is not required to discuss every ground taken by the Petitioner in the appeal memo. In such view of the matter, learned counsel for the State contended that the Appellate Authority has not committed any wrong or illegality in passing the order dated 12.03.2025 under Annexure-16 to the writ petition. 9. Having heard the learned counsels appearing for the respective parties and on a careful examination of the background facts as well as the documents annexed to the writ petition, this Court observes that the only issue that is involved in the present writ petition is with regard to the manner in which the appeal has been considered and disposed of by the Appellate Authority vide order dated 12.03.2025 under Annexure-16 to the writ petition. It is alleged by the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Petitioner that the same is devoid of any reason and ground. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State contended that the Appellate Authority has applied its mind to the issue and, accordingly, the appeal has been dismissed by passing a reasoned order dated 12.03.2025 under Annexure-16. Page 4 of 5. 10. On a careful analysis of the order dated 12.03.2025 under Annexure-16 to the writ petition, this Court observes that the Appellate Authority, while dismissing the appeal and confirming the order of Disciplinary Authority, has not assigned any reason whatsoever, although he has recorded his satisfaction. While recording such satisfaction, the Appellate Authority is required to support such satisfaction by the grounds on which such satisfaction was arrived at. It appears that the order dated 12.03.2025 under Annexure-16 is devoid of any reason. As such, this Court has no other alternative but to set aside the order dated 12.03.2025 under Annexure-16. Accordingly, the same is hereby set aside. Further, the matter is remanded back to the Opposite Party No.2 to reconsider the appeal after providing an opportunity of hearing to the Petitioner and the appeal be disposed of by passing a speaking and reasoned order within a period of two months from the date of communication of a certified copy of this order. 11. With the aforesaid observation and direction, the writ petition stands disposed of. ( A.K. Mohapatra) Judge Debasis Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: DEBASIS AECH Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT Date: 28-Jul-2025 17:01:11 Page 5 of 5.