The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C) No.19371 of 2024 Debendra Kumar Padhi …. Petitioner Mr. S.K. Mishra, Sr. Advocate along with Mr. C.S. Padhi, Advocate State of Odisha & Ors. -versus- …. Opposite Parties Mr. P.K. Panda, ASC CORAM: JUSTICE BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY ORDER 20.09.2025 Order No. 06. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual/Physical) Mode.
Legal Reasoning
2. Heard learned counsel appearing for the Parties. 3. The present Writ Petition has been filed inter alia challenging the order of punishment passed by the disciplinary authority-Opposite Party No.2 vide his order dtd.25.01.2024 under Annexure-9, further confirmed by the appellate authority-Opposite Party No.1 vide order dtd. 29.05.2024 under Annexure-11. 4.
Legal Reasoning
It is contended that Petitioner while continuing as an Assistant Section Officer, a proceeding was initiated against him vide Memorandum dtd.04.07.2022 of Opposite Party No.2, being the disciplinary authority. In the said proceeding, Petitioner filed his written // 2 // statement of defence on 02.08.2022 under Annexure-5 and also participated in the enquiry. 4.1. It is contended that Enquiry Officer after conducting an enquiry submitted his report on 12.12.2023 under Annexure-6 inter alia with the following findings:- “FINDINGS On Careful analysis of the evidences and records, it is here by concluded as follows:- The allegations are that the charged Officer failed to maintain absolute integrity and decorum of conduct in work place by misbehaving his immediate authority in loud voice over cell phone. Hence the 4 nos of articles of charges framed against him for violation of Rule no 3 and 4 of OGS Conduct rules mentioned on annex-1. After three reminders, Smt. Harapriya Nayak, Ex-LWO did not show herself for the entire period of the inquiry and was absent on the days of the inquiry as well. Beside from this, all seven witnesses are cross- examined, and their statements are meticulously recorded. Out of the seven witnesses, only one Shri Panu Bhera(P.W-6), Helper of the Press Store-Forms Unit had a testimony in support of Smt. Harapriya Nayak, but no evidence was presented. Therefore, all the the accusations and charges framed against Shri D.K. Padhi in Annexure - I with D.P no. 2494/PSP dtd. 04.07.2023 could not established”. 4.2. It is contended that after receipt of the enquiry report and the on the face of the fact that the proceeding was initiated under Rule-15 of the OCS (CCA) Rules, 1962, (in short ‘Rules’) no 1st show cause notice was issued along with the enquiry report to the Petitioner in terms of the provisions contained under Page 2 of 6 // 3 // Rule-15(10)(i)(a) of the Rules. Not only that Opposite Party No.2 being the disciplinary authority while issuing the 2nd show cause notice vide Annexure-7, by proposing the punishment of stoppage of one increment with cumulative effect, never gave a disagreement note to the finding of the Enquiry Officer. 4.3. It is contended that since the Enquiry Officer vide his report under Annexure-6 held the charges against the petitioner not proved, as provided under Rule- 15(10)(i)(b) of the rules a disagreement note was required to be given by Opposite Party No.2, while issuing 2nd show cause on 05.01.2024 under Annexure-7. 4.4. It is accordingly contended that since the 1st show cause was never issued to the Petitioner along with the enquiry report and while issuing the 2nd show cause vide Annexure-7 by proposing the punishment, no disagreement note was given in terms of the provisions contained under Rule- 15(10)(i)(b) of the Rules, the order of punishment passed against the Petitioner vide order dtd.25.01.2024 under Annexure-9 is not sustainable in the eye of law due to such non- compliance of the statutory provisions. 4.5. It is further contended that challenging such order, Petitioner though moved the appellate authority- Opposite Party No.1 by preferring an appeal under Page 3 of 6 // 4 // Annexure-10, but the appellate authority without proper appreciation of the grounds taken in the appeal, rejected the same vide order dtd.29.05.2024 under Annexure-11. 4.6. Learned Senior counsel appearing for the Petitioner vehemently contended that since the statutory provisions contained under Rule-15 was not followed by Opposite Party No.2 being the disciplinary authority, the order of punishment so passed under Annexure-9, further confirmed vide order under Annexure-11 require interference of this Court. 5. Mr. P.K. Panda, learned Addl. Standing Counsel for the State on the other hand made his submission basing on the stand taken in the counter affidavit. It is contended that in the proceeding initiated against the Petitioner vide Memorandum dtd.04.07.2022, after submission of the enquiry report, Petitioner was issued with the show cause by Opposite Party No.2 on 05.01.2024 under Annexure-7. In the said show cause, the disciplinary authority proposed to impose the punishment of stoppage of one increment with cumulative effect. 5.1. It is further contended that after consideration of the reply given by the Petitioner to the said show cause and taking into account the gravity of the charges, Petitioner was imposed with the punishment of Page 4 of 6 // 5 // stoppage of one increment with cumulative effect vide order dtd.25.01.2024 under Annexure-9. Against such an order of punishment, Petitioner though moved an appeal, but the appellate authority-Opposite Party No.1 rejected the same vide order dtd.29.05.2024 under Annexure-11. 5.2. It is accordingly contended that since the order of punishment passed by the disciplinary authority has been upheld by the appellate authority, taking into the nature of charges framed against the Petitioner in the proceeding, no interference is called for. 6. Having heard learned counsel appearing for the Parties and considering the submissions made, this Court finds that the proceeding in question was initiated against the Petitioner vide Memorandum dtd.04.07.2022 under Annexure-4 under Rule-15 of the Rules. As found the Enquiry Officer after conducting the enquiry submitted the report on 12.12.2023 under Annexure-6 and in the said enquiry report, the Enquiry Officer clearly held that charges against the Petitioner are not proved. 6.1. However, on the face of such report and without issuing the 1st show cause as provided under Rule- 15(10)(i)(a) of the Rules the disciplinary authority- Opposite Party No.2 issued the 2nd show cause on Page 5 of 6 // 6 // 05.01.2024 under Annexure-7 by proposing the punishment but without giving a disagreement note. 6.2. Since statutory provisions contained under Rule- 15(10)(i)(a) of the Rules was never followed and while issuing the 2nd show cause by proposing the punishment, no disagreement note was given by Opposite Party No.2 as provided under Rule-15(10)(i)(b) of the Rules, as per the considered view of this Court on the face of such non-compliance of the statutory provisions, the order of punishment so imposed cannot sustain in the eye of law. 6.3. Therefore, this Court is inclined to quash the order of punishment so passed on 25.01.2024 under Annexure-9, further confirmed by the appellate authority vide
Decision
order dtd.29.05.2024 under Annexure-11. While quashing both the orders, this Court allows the Writ Petition. Consequential follow up action be taken by Opposite Party No.2 to extend the benefits as due and admissible. 7. Accordingly, the Writ Petition stands disposed of. Signature Not Verified Subrat Digitally Signed Signed by: SUBRAT KUMAR BARIK Reason: Authentication Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACK Date: 24-Sep-2025 17:06:42 (Biraja Prasanna Satapathy) Judge Page 6 of 6