The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C)(OAC) No.2973 of 2018 Ramakanta Suna …. Petitioner Ms. B.K. Pattnaik, Advocate -versus- State of Odisha & Ors. …. Opposite Parties Mr. S. Jena, AGA CORAM: JUSTICE BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY ORDER 21.02.2024 Order No 14. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual/Physical) Mode.
Legal Reasoning
2. Heard Ms. B.K. Pattnaik, learned counsel for the Petitioner and Mr. S. Jena, learned Addl. Govt. Advocate appearing for the Opp. Parties. 3. The Petitioner has filed the present writ petition inter alia challenging the final order of punishment passed against him by Opp. Party No. 2 on dt.31.05.2018 under Annexure-10, so confirmed by the appellate authority vide order under Annexure-12 dtd.15.10.2018. 4. It is the main contention of the learned counsel for the Petitioner that Petitioner was proceeded with in a proceeding vide Bolangir District Proceeding No. 21 dtd.11.11.2008 under Annexure-1. In the said proceeding when the Enquiry Officer held the Petitioner not guilty of the charges, Opp. Party No. 2 vide order dtd.03.12.2014 under Annexure-3 while did not agree with the finding of the Enquiry Officer, directed for fresh enquiry. // 2 // 4.1. It is contended that after such order passed by the Disciplinary Authority under Annexure-3, fresh enquiry was conducted and in the said enquiry Petitioner was held guilty of the charges. Basing on such enquiry report Petitioner when was imposed with the punishment vide order dtd.16.09.2017 under Annexure-6, Petitioner carried the matter before the appellate authority. 4.2. The appellate authority vide order dtd.18.12.2017 under Annexure-7 while setting aside the order of punishmen, again directed the disciplinary authority i.e. Opp. Party No. 2 to cause fresh enquiry through an independent Enquiry Officer and to proceed with the matter. It is contended that in terms of the order passed by the appellate authority under Annexure-7, fresh enquiry was conducted by an independent Enquiry Officer. But the said Enquiry Officer when held the Petitioner guilty of the charges, Opp. Party No. 2 by following the provisions contained under PMR passed the order of punishment on 31.05.2018 under Annexure-10 by imposing the following punishment: “Forfeiture of increment for a period of one year carrying the value of 2 black marks.” 4.3. Petitioner challenging such order of punishment filed an appeal before the Opp. Party No. 1 under Annexure-11. But the appellate authority without proper appreciation of the grounds taken in the appeal, dismissed the same vide order dtd.15.10.2018 under Annexure-12. 4.4. Learned counsel for the Petitioner contended that since the 1st Enquiry Officer held the Petitioner not guilty of the charges, Opp. Party No. 2 was not competent to pass an order on 03.12.2014 under Annexure-3, directing for fresh enquiry. It is also contended Page 2 of 5 // 3 // that the order of punishment initially passed by the Opp. Party No. 2 on 16.09.2017 under Annexure-6 though was set aside by the appellate authority vide order under Annexure-7, the appellate authority was not competent to remand the matter to the stage of enquiry once again. It is accordingly that because of such lacunae available on the face of the record, the order of punishment passed under Annexure-10 so confirmed under Annexure-12 are not sustainable in the eye of law. 5. Learned Addl. Govt. Advocate on the other hand made his submission basing on the stand taken in the counter affidavit so filed by Opp. Party No. 2. To the stand taken by the learned counsel for the Petitioner, learned AGA contended that in the proceeding initiated under Annexure-1 when the Enquiry Officer held the Petitioner not guilty of the charges, Opp. Party No. 2 vide order under Annexure-3 directed for fresh enquiry. Petitioner without raising any objection participated in the enquiry and the Enquiry Officer when held the Petitioner guilty of the charges by following due procedure of law, the order of punishment was passed by Opp. Party No. 2 on 16.09.2017 under Annexure-6. 5.1. Petitioner when challenged the order of punishment, the appellate authority vide order under Annexure-7 remitted the matter to the stage of enquiry, Petitioner also never objected to such order passed by the appellate authority and instead participated in the enquiry. The 3rd Enquiry Officer in terms of the order passed by the appellate authority once again held the Petitioner guilty of the charges and by following due procedure of law, the order of punishment was finally passed on 31.05.2018 under Annexure-10 Page 3 of 5 // 4 // so confirmed by the appellate authority vide order under Annexure- 12. 5.2. Learned Addl. Govt. Advocate contended that since Petitioner at no point of time challenged the order passed initially by Opp. Party No. 2 under Annexure-3 and by the appellate authority under Annexure-7, Petitioner couldn’t take a plea that fresh enquiry is not permissible and no such direction could have been issued either by Opp. Party No. 2 or by Opp. Party No. 1 vide order under Annexure-3 & 7. Once the Petitioner participated in the enquiry in terms of the said orders, Petitioner after being imposed with the punishment, cannot take a plea that such a course of action was not available either to the disciplinary authority or the appellate authority. It is also contended that by following due procedure of law, Petitioner has been imposed with the punishment so upheld by the appellate authority, which requires no interference. 6. Having heard learned counsel appearing for the Parties and after going through the materials available on record, this Court finds that in the proceeding initiated under Annexure-1 when the Enquiry Officer held the Petitioner not guilty of the charges, Opp. Party No. 2 being the disciplinary authority passed an order on 03.12.2-14 under Annexuree-3 for causing fresh enquiry. In terms of the said order passed under Annexure-3, Petitioner participated in the enquiry and the Enquiry Officer held the Petitioner guilty of the charges. Basing on such report submitted by the 2nd Enquiry Officer, order of punishment was passed against the Petitioner on 16.09.2017 under Annexure-6 with imposition of the punishment of forfeiture of increment for one year carrying the value of 2 black marks. Page 4 of 5 // 5 // 6.1. Petitioner when challenged such an order passed by Opp. Party No. 2 under Annexure-6, the appellate authority vide order dt.18.12.2017 under Annexure-7, while quashing the order of punishment remitted the matter for fresh enquiry. Petitioner once again did not object to such order passed by the appellate authority under Annexure-7 and participated in the enquiry. The Enquiry Officer in terms of the order passed by the appellate authority held the Petitioner guilty of the charges and the Disciplinary authority by following due procedure of law imposed the order of punishment vide order at Annexure-10. The appellate authority as found from the record has upheld the order while dismissing the appeal vide order dtd.15.10.2018 under Annexure-12. 6.2. This Court after going through the materials available on record is prima facie satisfied that no illegality or irregularity has been committed with regard to conduct of the enquiry and the order of punishment so imposed vide Annexure-10. Since the Petitioner on the face of the order under Annexure-3 & 7, participated in the enquiry, he cannot take a plea that such a course of action was not available either to Opp. Party No. 1 or Opp. Party No. 2. In any view of the matter, this Court finds no illegality or irregularity with the impugned order so passed under Annexure-10 and so confirmed under Annexure-12.
Decision
7. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: SNEHANJALI PARIDA Designation: Sr. Stenographer Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Sneha Date: 04-Mar-2024 11:03:19 (Biraja Prasanna Satapathy) Judge Page 5 of 5