The High Court
Case Details
Order No. 02. IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C) No.22660 of 2024 Nilima Kumari Debnath …. Petitioner Mr. A. Mishra, Advocate -versus- State Level Scrutiny Committee & ors. …. Opposite Parties CORAM: JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR MISHRA
Decision
ORDER 11.09.2024 This matter is taken up through hybrid mode. 2. This writ petition has been preferred with a prayer to call for the records and to quash the caste certificate proceeding in RDCCTC-SSD-CASE No.21/2023. 3. As is revealed from the record, earlier the Petitioner had approached this Court in W.P.(C) No.33003 of 2020 questioning the Enquiry Report submitted by the SDPO, Kendrapara, who was arrayed as Opposite Party No.6 to the said writ petition. 4. However, the coordinate Bench disposed of the said writ petition vide order dated 09.04.2024 with certain observation. Paragraph No.6 of the said order, being relevant, is reproduced below for ready reference:- ORDER 09.04.2024 It such documents, finally, the report “6. Gone through the joint enquiry report as at Annexure-D/5 to the counter affidavit. is made to suggest that such an enquiry was held and i.e. Annexure-D/5 was received by opposite party No.2. Whether, opposite party No.6 did ignore the relevant as, Annexures-9 to 15 to the rejoinder affidavit and if at all, there was any the bias and malafide vis-à-vis petitioner, merely by referring to Annexure-D/5, it is not prima facie learned established. Mr. Mishra, counsel for the petitioner refers to the rejoinder affidavit and pleads that number of witnesses, who were required to be examined by opposite party No.6 during and in course of the joint enquiry report, was not held, hence, the prejudice is clear and apparent and malafide on the part of opposite party No.6. But, the Court is of the view that the joint enquiry report i.e. Annexure-D/5 is yet to be accepted by opposite party No.2. If at all there is any prejudice caused to the petitioner during enquiry by the joint team, the same shall be examined by opposite party No.2 at the end. In other words, the Court is of the view that any such bias or mala fide from the side of opposite party No.6, a party to the joint enquiry, may be examined and looked into by opposite party No.2 considering the pleadings on record and claim of the petitioner. In so far as the jurisdiction of opposite party No.2 is concerned, the Court that irrespective of any such decision of this Court under challenge in WA conclusion of is Page 2 of 5 is also the Court No.321 of 2023, the proceeding should be continued and dispose of subject however to result in WA No.321 of 2023, which is stated to be still pending. Furthermore, the Court is of the view that since filed materials are on record through rejoinder affidavit with the bias alleged for being the joint enquiry having not been properly the held, conclusion that all such aspects shall have to be examined by opposite party No.2 at the time of proceeding disposal initiated at the behest of opposite party No.7. With the above said discussion and the conclusion reached at, the Court is of the humble view that there is no need for any interference with regard to the joint report at the present stage, acceptance of which, shall be subject to the decision of opposite party No.2, for which, reasonable opportunity is required to be provided to the petitioner.” the of (Emphasis Supplied) 5. In view of the said order passed by the coordinate Bench, this Court is not inclined to pass any further order, as prayed by the Petitioner. 6. At this juncture, learned Counsel for the Petitioner, drawing attention of this Court to notice dated 03.07.2024, as at Annexure-6, vis-à-vis the subsequent notice dated 02.09.2024 given to the Petitioner and her family members, as at Annexure-8, by the Joint Director, SSD-Cum-Member Convener, Page 3 of 5 SLSC, submits, though the Petitioner and her family members were permitted to appear in person or along with their advocate vide notice dated 03.07.2024, but in the subsequent notice given to them vide notice dated 02.09.2024, they have been intimated to appear in person before the Committee on 12.09.2024, at 10.30. A.M. 7. From the said notice, the Petitioner apprehends that the Committee may not permit the Petitioner and her family members to be represented through the lawyer concerned, who has already rendered appearance before the Committee representing the Petitioner. 8. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner further submits, the Petitioner is at present serving in OHPC and posted at Rengali in the district of Angul. Since the matter stands posted to tomorrow (12.09.2024), she being a Government employee, it may not be practicable on her part to remain present in person before the Committee, as has been intimated vide notice dated 02.09.2024. That apart, she needs some time to give proper feedback to her lawyer to defend her case effectively. Hence, liberty be given to the Petitioner to move for an adjournment through her Counsel before the Committee on 12.09.2024. 9. In view of the submissions, as detailed above, the writ petition stands disposed of with an observation Page 4 of 5 that the Petitioner namely, Nilima Kumari Debnath shall be permitted to be represented through her lawyer, as before, and if the lawyer concerned appears before the SLSC tomorrow (12.09.2024) and moves for an adjournment, the SLSC shall do well to adjourn the matter to some other date, preferably to a date after two weeks from tomorrow (12.09.2024) and shall give due opportunity to the Petitioner so also her Counsel to defend her case properly and effectively. 10. With the said observation, the writ petition stands disposed of. 11. Urgent certified copy of this order be granted on proper application as per rules in course of the day. 12. In view of the urgency shown, in addition to the certified copy, the Petitioner is giving liberty to utilize the digitally signed copy of this order available in the website of this Court, if so required. Banita Signature Not Verified JUDGE Digitally Signed Signed by: BANITA PRIYADARSHINI PALEI Designation: SR. STENOGRAPHER Reason: AUTHENTICATION Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACK Date: 11-Sep-2024 16:49:27 (S. K. MISHRA) Page 5 of 5