The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C) No.23384 of 2023 Arsu Hembram …. Petitioners Mr.Ramakanta Sahoo, Advocate -versus- State of Odisha and others …. Opposite Parties Mr.Saswat Das, Advocate CORAM: JUSTICE A.K. MOHAPATRA Order No.
Decision
ORDER 07.08.2023 01. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual /Physical Mode). 2. Heard learned counsel for the Petitioner as well as the learned Additional Government Advocate. Perused the Writ Petition as well as the documents annexed thereto. 3. The present Writ Petition has been filed with the following prayer : “ The Petitioner therefore prays for following reliefs:- It is therefore prayed that this Hon’ble Court would graciously be pleased to admit the Writ Petition, call for the records, issue Rule NISI calling upon the opp. Parties to show cause as to why the prayer of the petitioner shall not be allowed and if the Opp.Party Authorities fail to show cause or show insufficient cause, the said Rule be made absolute, And may be pleased to quash the decision with regard to order passed by the Opp.Party No.5 by revoking his own // 2 // order of reinstatement of service of the Petitioner as Managing Director of Baddundu LAMPCS and of handing over charges issued by the Opp.Party no.5 in Letter dated 29.06.2023 and 11.07.2023 respectively impugned herewith vide Annexure-27 and 28 to the Writ Petition, by issuing a Writ in the nature of Certiorari, And may further be pleased to command the Opp.Party Authorities more specifically the Opp.Party No.5 to allow the Petitioner to work as Managing Director of Baddundu LAMPCS, by issuing a Writ in the nature of Mandamus, And may further be pleased to issue any other Writ(s)/Order(s)/Direction(s) deem fit and proper under the facts and circumstances of the case;” 4. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the Petitioner that initially the Petitioner was selected and appointed as Managing Director of Baddundu LAMPCS. Thereafter, a Departmental Proceeding was initiated against the Petitioner and was placed under suspension and she was asked to submit her written statement of defence. It is further contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that an Enquiry Officer was appointed by the DRCS. The Enquiry Officer submitted the report before the ARCS, who in turn transmitted the said enquiry report to the Administrator and directed to take necessary action against the Petitioner. Thereafter, second show cause notice was issued by the Administrator in contemplation of imposition of major penalty. Pursuant to the second show cause notice, the Petitioner submitted her representation. While the representation of the Petitioner was pending, the Administrator-cum Disciplinary Authority has issued letter to the DRCS for imposition of major penalty for removal from service. 5. It is further contended by the leaned counsel for the Petitioner that earlier the Petitioner approached this Court by filing W.P.(C) No.36757 of 2020 and this Court vide order dated 23.12.2020 while admitting the Writ Petition passed an interim order protecting the // 3 // Petitioner. For non-compliance of the interim order passed in the Writ Petition, CONTC No.3848 of 2021 was initiated . The said contempt proceeding was dropped vide order dated 25.08.20221 as the authorities have withdrawn/revoked the order of suspension of the Petitioner. Thereafter, the petitioner again approached this Court by filing W.P.(C) No.14737 of 2021 for a direction to the Opposite parties to release the regular salary. 6. It is also contended that the aforesaid Writ Petitions are pending before this Court for final adjudication. In the meantime, the Petitioner has filed the present Writ Petition with the prayer as quoted hereinabove. On perusal of the Writ Petition, it appears that the Petitioner has referred to Clause-26 of the guideline which provides for appeal. However, he further submitted that the ARCS is the appellate authority as provided under Clause – 26 of the guideline. He further submitted that the impugned action was taken at the instance of ARCS, therefore, he could not approach the ARCS by filing an appeal as he is primarily interested in the matter. 7. Learned Additional Government Advocate on the other hand contended that since an alternative remedy of appeal has been provided under Clause 26 of the guideline, therefore, the Petitioner be directed to approach the appellate authority by filing an appeal and the appellate authority be directed to dispose of the appeal in accordance with law within a stipulated period of time. 8. Having heard learned counsel appearing for the respective parties and on perusal of the materials on record, this Court is of the considered view that although there exist an appeal provision under Clause 26 of the guideline, however, since the proceeding was initiated at the instance of the ARCS and he has also passed order in this matter, therefore, this Court is of the view that since the ARCS is interested in the matter he could not have acted as an appellate authority. Therefore, // 4 // the petitioner is directed to approach the RCS by filing an appeal within two weeks from today. In the event such an appeal is filed before the RCS within the stipulated period, the RCS shall consider the same strictly in accordance with law within a period of eight weeks from the date, the Petitioner files the appeal memo along with certified copy of this order. Further, the appeal of the Petitioner be disposed of by passing a reasoned and speaking order. The decision so taken be communicated to the Petitioner within two weeks thereafter. 9. It is open for the Petitioner to take any ground in the appeal along with the new supporting documents in support of his contentions. It is further open to the Petitioner to move an application for appropriate interim order before the RCS, who shall consider the same strictly in accordance with law and pass necessary orders thereon. 10. With the aforesaid observation, the Writ Petition stands disposed of. 11. Issue urgent certified copy of this order as per Rules. RKS ( A.K. Mohapatra ) Judge Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: RAMESH KUMAR SINGH Designation: Junior Stenographer Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa Date: 10-Aug-2023 18:37:29