The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.A. No.1669 of 2024 Pravash Chandra Sahu, S/o. Late Laxmidhar Sahu, At: Kundapatna, PO/PS: Dharmashala, District-Jajpur. …. Appellant Mr. B.S. Tripathy, Advocate …. Respondents -versus- 1. State of Odisha, represented through its Addl. Chief Secretary to Govt., Home Department, Bhubaneswar, District-Khurda. 2. Deputy Secretary to Government, Home Department, Bhubaneswar, District-Khurda. 3. D.G. & I.G. of Police, Odisha, Cuttack, At/PO; Buxibazar, District- Cuttack. 4. Superintendent of Police, Puri, At/PO/District-Puri. 5. Superintendent of Police, Jagatsinghpur, At/PO/ District- Jagatsinghpur.
Legal Reasoning
Mr. Saswat Das, Addl. Government Advocate CORAM: HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON’BLE MISS JUSTICE SAVITRI RATHO Order No.
Decision
ORDER 16.07.2024 02. Chakradhari Sharan Singh, CJ. This matter is taken up through Hybrid mode. Page 1 of 6 2. The appellant, in the present intra-court appeal was posted as the Inspector In-Charge of Sea Beach Police Station, Puri. A disciplinary proceeding was initiated against him on the allegation that on 26.11.2013, one USA national had approached the police station and reported about sexual abuse with four children in the Casuarina jungle at Penthakata by a French national. Despite the seriousness of the allegation and involvement of a foreign national, the appellant did not make any formal inquiry into the alleged incident nor did he inform the senior officials. 3. Taking advantage of the police inaction, the miscreant managed to flee away from the Puri town and eventually left India on 02.12.2013. Later, after one week, on the written report of the same USA national, Sea Beach PS Case No.206 dated 02.12.2013 was registered against the said French national disclosing commission of offence under various provisions of the IPC and Section 8 and 12 of the POCSO Act, 2012. 4. The incident was highlighted in media drawing adverse responses from Odisha Human Rights Commission and National Human Rights Commission. With these allegations, a charge of misconduct was framed, calling upon the appellant to explain as to why a suitable disciplinary action be not taken against him. 5. The appellant responded to the show cause notice and asserted that the incident was verbally reported at the police station in the presence of an Assistant Sub-Inspector (ASI) of Police, who had made entries in the station diary in this regard. He asserted that the said ASI had requested another ASI, who was on PCR mobile duty, Page 2 of 6 to inquire into it. Accordingly, an inquiry was conducted and on his return, a Station Diary Entry No.620 was made at 8.30PM. 6. The appellant’s reply to the show cause notice was not found satisfactory by the disciplinary authority and accordingly, an Inquiry Officer was appointed to inquire into the charge of misconduct. The Inquiry Officer found the charge against the appellant proved based on the evidence. 7. It is the appellant’s case that the disciplinary authority called upon the appellant to submit his explanation on the finding of the Inquiry Officer within fifteen days. The appellant filed his representation against the finding recorded by the Inquiry Officer with a plea that he should be exonerated of the charge. The disciplinary authority, however, accepted the report of the Inquiry Officer and asked the appellant to furnish a representation as to why punishment of entry of “One Black Mark” in the service book be not imposed for his alleged negligent conduct and dereliction of duty. The appellant responded to the said second show cause reply. The disciplinary authority, after due consideration of the appellant’s reply, passed a final order on 24.07.2018 imposing punishment of entry of “One Black Mark’’ in his service book. 8. The appellant preferred an appeal before the appellate authority which came to be dismissed, as communicated through a letter dated 03.06.2020. Aggrieved by the orders passed by the disciplinary authority and the appellate authority, the appellant approached this Court by filing the writ petition giving rise to W.P.(C) No.34170 of 2020 which has been dismissed by the learned Single Judge by a judgment and order dated 26.04.2024. Page 3 of 6 The said judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge is under challenge in the present intra-court appeal. 9. Assailing the impugned order, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant has argued that it is evident from the station diary entry dated 26.11.2013 that there was no oral report of any sexual abuse with the four children. He has submitted that learned Single Judge has failed to consider the factual aspect as is clear from the materials on record that the appellant was not present at the police station and the station diary entry was accordingly made by another police officer, who was present at the police station. He has reiterated that there was no report of any sexual abuse, made by the USA foreign national on 26.11.2013. He has also submitted that learned Single Judge ignored the fact that the statements made by the complainant in his statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. and 164 Cr.P.C. do not corroborate the charge that he had reported about the sexual abuse on the children at the Sea Beach PS on 26.11.2013. He has argued that the charge framed against the appellant was not definite and therefore the imposition of punishment is vitiated. He has placed reliance on Supreme Court’s decision in cases of A.L. Kalra v. Project & Equipment Corporation of India Ltd., AIR 1984 SC 1361; Oryx Fisheries v. Union of India, (2010) 13 SCC 427 and ECIL v. B. Karunakar, AIR 1994 SC 1074. 10. Learned Additional Government Advocate representing the respondents has submitted that the impugned judgment and order has been passed in consonance with the requirement of the disciplinary rule and the principles of natural justice. He submits that learned Single Judge has rightly dismissed the writ petition in Page 4 of 6 the absence of any material to demonstrate violation of principles of natural justice. 11. We have gone through the materials on record and the reasons assigned by the learned Single Judge while dismissing the writ petition. Learned Single Judge has addressed in the impugned judgment and order the factual aspects also, apart from the fact that there was no procedural irregularity in holding the disciplinary proceeding. 12. It is trite that exercising power of judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, this Court should not interfere with the findings recorded by a quasi judicial authority unless such findings are perverse. A finding can be said to be perverse, if it is without any evidence or contrary to evidence. A finding can be treated to be perverse, if it is shown that no prudent person based on appreciation of evidence could have reached such conclusion. Exercising power of judicial review, the Court is not required to re- appreciate the evidence. We do not find in the present case, violation of any procedural statutory requirement. Further, the finding of the disciplinary authority is based on evidence germane to the allegation of misconduct against the appellant. 13. We, thus, do not find any violation of principles of natural justice. The punishment of entry of “One Black Mark” in the service book of the appellant cannot be said to be so disproportionate to the charge of misconduct found proved against the appellant in the disciplinary proceeding as would warrant this Court’s interference exercising power of judicial review. Page 5 of 6 14. In the above background, we do not find any legal infirmity in the impugned judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge requiring interference in an intra-Court appeal. 15. This appeal has no merit and is dismissed accordingly. Chief Justice (Chakradhari Sharan Singh) (Savitri Ratho) Judge S.K. Guin/P.A. Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: SUBASH KUMAR GUIN Designation: Personal Assistant Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Date: 26-Jul-2024 18:59:06 Page 6 of 6