The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C) No.26285 of 2025 Sibanarayan Panda @ Siba Narayan Panda …. Petitioner Mr. J.K. Khuntia, Advocate State of Odisha & Anr. -versus- …. Opposite Parties Mr. A.K. Pati, ASC CORAM: JUSTICE BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY ORDER 30.10.2025 Order No. 04. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual/Physical) Mode.
Legal Reasoning
2. Heard learned counsel appearing for the Parties. 3. Pursuant to the order dtd.19.09.2025, learned Addl. Standing Counsel produced the instruction provided by the Office of Opposite Party No.2 vide his letter dtd.09.10.2025 in Court. The same be kept in record. 4. Petitioner has filed the present Writ Petition inter alia with the following prayer:- “It is therefore prayed that this Hon'ble Court may be graciously pleased to admit the writ application, issue Rule NISI, calling upon the opp. parties to show cause as to why the impugned 2nd show cause notice dated 02.09.2025 under Annexure 10 the Disciplinary Authority shall not be quashed and if the issued by // 2 // opp. parties fail to show cause or show insufficient cause make the said Rule be absolute. And the Hon’ble Court pleased to issue a writ of certiorari in quashing the impugned 2nd show cause notice dated 02.09.2025 under Annexure-10 issued by the Disciplinary Authority. And pass any other order/orders, direction/directions as would be deem fit and proper as facts and circumstances of the case. And for the said act of kindness, the petitioner shall as in duty bound ever pray.” 5. It is contended that in the proceeding initiated against the Petitioner vide Memorandum dtd.01.08.2024 under Annexure-5, the Enquiry Officer submitted by the report under Annexure-7 with the suggestion to impose the following punishments on the Petitioner:- “1. The D.O may be censured for the above lapses. 2. He may be cautioned in writing which need be entered in his Service Book to be more disciplined & responsible in dealing with the official matters as well as Sub-ordinate officials. 3. One Annual periodical Increment may be stopped without cumulative towards him for his irresponsibility & misconduct” .
Legal Reasoning
5.1. It is contended that Petitioner was issued with the 1st show cause along with the enquiry report and Petitioner also submitted his reply to the 1st show cause under Annexure-9. But thereafter without following the provisions contained under Rule- 15(10)(i)(b) of the OCS (CC&A) Rules, 1962 (in short ‘Rules’), the 2nd show cause has been issued by Page 2 of 7 // 3 // proposing the punishment, which was not suggested by the enquiry officer. Rule-15(10)(i)(b) of the Rules reads as follows:- “Rule-15(10)(i)(b):- On receipt of the representation referred to in Sub-clause (a) the disciplinary authority having regard to the findings on the charges, is of the opinion that any of the penalties specified in Clauses (vi) to (ix) of Rule 13 should be imposed, he shall furnish to the delinquent Government servant a statement of its findings along with brief reasons for disagreement, if any, with the findings of the inquiring officer and give him a notice by Registered post or otherwise stating the penalty proposed to be imposed on him and calling upon time such him representation as he may wish to make against the proposed penalty: to submit within a specified Provided that in every case in which it is necessary to consult the Commission under the provision of the Constitution of India and the Odisha Public Service Commission (Limitation of Functions) Regulation, 1989 the record of Inquiry together with a copy of the notice given under Sub-clause (a) and the representation if any, received within the specified time in response to such notice shall be forwarded by the disciplinary authority to the Commission for its advice”. 5.2. Basing on the aforesaid rules, learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner contended that since the punishment suggested by the enquiry officer has been enhanced while issuing the impugned 2nd show-cause on dtd.02.09.2025 under Annexure-10, in view of the provision contained under Rule-15(10)(i)(b) of the Rules the disciplinary authority who happens to be Opposite Party No.2, was required to give a disagreement note. But since no such disagreement note is there in the impugned 2nd show cause notice, the same is not Page 3 of 7 // 4 // sustainable in the eye of law and requires interference of this Court. 6. On instruction, learned Addl. Standing Counsel contended that since after going through the enquiry report the disciplinary authority found that the charges are very serious, the disciplinary authority thought it proper to enhance the punishment so suggested by the Enquiry Officer and accordingly the 2nd show-cause was issued by proposing the following punishment:- “1. Two annual periodical increments may be stopped with cumulative effect for irresponsibility & misconduct. 2. Dismissal from service for Doubtful morality.” integrity and Instruction provided by Opposite Party No.2 vide his letter dtd.09.10.2025 reads as follows:- “From Sri Birasen Pradhan, OAS (SS), Secretary to RDC, (SD), Berhampur Shri Manash Ranjan Mohanty, Addl. Govt. To Advocate, O/o the Advocate General, Odisha, Cuttack. Sub: WP(C) No.26286/2025 filed by Sibanarayan Panda Sibu Narayan Parida- vs- State of Odisha and Another. Ref: Your letter no.46180, dtd 24.09.2025. Sir. In inviting a reference to the letter under reference, it is submitted that the second show cause was issued to the petitioner vide letter NO.95/C.S., this office dtd.02.09.2025 which is placed at annexure-10. The 1.0 in his findings submitted in the enquiry report has mentioned that the D.O has not discharged his duties properly and over staff of RDC. Basing on the said Page 4 of 7 // 5 // observation of 1.0, the Disciplinary Authority was telephone he has pressurized the Sub-ordinate officials taking the advantage of being the act of the petitioner. Further though D.P was initiated under rule 15 of OCS (CC&A) convinced that irresponsibility & misconduct, doubtful integrity & Immorality was noticed in the above into rules. Thus, consideration, the Disciplinary Rules-1962, the 1.0 suggested punishments applicable to D.P initiated under Rule-16 of Authority arrived at the conclusion that proposed punishment reflected in the enquiry report is not at par with seriousness of charges. the gravity of charges taking Therefore, the Disciplinary Authority issued 2nd show cause notice proposing higher punishments as under: 1. Two annual periodical increments may be stopped irresponsibility and with misconduct. cumulative effect for 2. Dismissal from service for doubtful integrity and immorality.
Decision
In view of the above contentions, there is no procedural deviation in issue of 2nd show cause notice in this case. Thus the prayer of the petitioner lacks merit for consideration and deserves rejection.” 6.1. It is accordingly contended that since in the proceeding so initiated the charges are very serious, on the face of the enquiry report submitted under Annexure-7, Opposite Party No.2 being the disciplinary authority thought it proper to enhance the punishment and accordingly the 2nd show-cause has been issued under Annexure-10. It is accordingly contended that there is no illegality or irregularity with regard to issuance of Annexure-10. 7. Having heard learned counsel appearing for the Parties and considering the submissions made, this Court finds that in the proceeding initiated against the Page 5 of 7 // 6 // Petitioner vide Memorandum dtd.01.08.2024 under Annexure-5, the enquiry officer after conducting the enquiry submitted the report under Annexure-7 by suggesting the punishments as indicated hereinabove. 8.1. As found, Petitioner was issued with the 1st show cause along with the enquiry report and Petitioner also submitted his reply under Annexure-9. But thereafter while issuing the 2nd show cause, without having a disagreement note, the punishment suggested by the Enquiry Officer in his report under Annexure-7 has been enhanced. 8.2. Since no disagreement note is enclosed to the 2nd show cause notice nor any reason has been given for such disagreement in terms of the provisions contained under Rule- 15(10)(i)(b) of the Rules, this Court is of the view that no such enhanced punishment could have been proposed in the 2nd show cause under Annexure-10. 8.3. In view of such material irregularity, which is apparent in the impugned 2nd show cause dtd.02.09.2025 under Annexure-10, this Court is inclined to quash 2nd show-cause issued under Annexure-10. While quashing the same, this Court permits Opposite Party No.2 to proceed in the proceeding in accordance with law, in which, this Court expresses no opinion. Page 6 of 7 // 7 // 9. Accordingly, the Writ Petition stands disposed of. Subrat Judge (Biraja Prasanna Satapathy) Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: SUBRAT KUMAR BARIK Reason: Authentication Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACK Date: 10-Nov-2025 18:45:28 Page 7 of 7