High Court of Orissa
Case Details
IN THE E HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C) No.23257 of 2024 SudhansuKishorP orPati …. Petitioner Pe Mr. S.K. Purohit,Ad Advocate -Versus- State of Odisha& &others …. Opposite site parties Mr. N.K. Prahar haraj, AGA RAM: CORA MR. JUSTICE R.K. PATTANAIK M ORDER 23.09.2024 Order No. 01. 1. Heard M Mr.Purohit, learned counsel for the petitio itioner and Mr. Praharaj, learn earned AGA for the State. 2. No notic otices are issued to opposite party Nos.2 to to 4 as the matter is dispose osed of at the stage of admission consider idering the grievance of the p e petitioner. 3. Instant w nt writ petition is filed by the petitioner for a d a direction to the opposite site parties to provide him Annexure-III III of the Memorandum of of Charges containing the list of docume ments and witnesses through gh which the charges are to be proved so as to s to enable him to file a wr written statement of defence and further t r to direct opposite party No o.2 to enhance the subsistence allowance as p as per Rule 90(1) A of the Ori Orissa Service Code and to complete the depar partmental enquiry within a a stipulated period as he is to superannuate ate on 30th April, 2025 with t the release of all consequential benefits in his his favour. Page 1 of 4 Pag 4.
Legal Reasoning
Mr. Puro urohit, learned counsel for the petitioner subm ubmits that the petitioner wa was placed under suspension vide Annexur xure-1 and there has been ino inordinate delay in the departmental proceed eeding. It is further submitted ted that the petitioner has not been provi ovided the required documen ents on the charges framed to be relied upon pon by the Sambalpur Devel velopment Authority and in that connect ection, he represented vide A de Annexure-6 with an appeal as at Annexure- -9 which has not been deal ealt with by the authority till date. It is the con contention of the learned d counsel for the petitioner that the disc disciplinary proceeding was to s to be concluded within a time frame keeping ing in view the provisions of O of OCS (CCA) Rules, 1962 and in accordance w e with G.A. Department Circu ircular dated 30th November, 2002. With th the above submission, it is cla s claimed that since all such relevant papers wit with regard to disciplinary act y action are to be served on the delinquent bu but in the present case, the p he petitioner has been deniedand deprived of of hence a departure from t the prescribed procedure to provide the the list of documents and w witnesses sought to be referred and relied on on by the Authority. That a t apart, learned counsel for the petitioner s r seeks for enhancement of su f subsistence allowance and relies on a decisio ision in the case ofAjay Kuma mar ChoudharyVrs. Union of India and anot nother AIR 2015 SC 2389stat stating that there has been no review pursuan uant to the order of suspensio nsion vide Annexure-1 and therefore, the pet petitioner’s fate hangs in fire and that too when, the proceeding is at th the initial stage, hence, there herefore, necessary direction may perhaps be i e issued to opposite party N y No.2 to comply the same and ensure closur sure of the disciplinary proce oceeding according to the rules within a st stipulated period. 5. Mr. Prah raharaj, learned AGA for the State submits tha that action is being taken by t by the Sambalpur Development Authority. Page 2 of 4 6. As per er the Circular of the G.A. Department, G , Govt. of Odisha dated 30th th November, 2002, the authority has to fu furnish all such documents so s sought for by the petitioner and according to to learned counsel for the p e petitioner, the Memorandum of Charges co containing the list of docume uments and witnesses have not been supplied lied, hence, the same is not not adhered to.Considering the grievance t e that the representation un under Annexure-4 and the subsequent appe ppeal vide Annexure-8 since ce pending decision, this Court is of the view ew that the same is required t d to be supplied in view of G.A. Department ent Circular (supra). 7. In Ajay jay Kumar Choudhurycase, the Apex Court h t held and concluded that su t suspension specially preceding the formula ulation of charges is essentia ntially transitory or temporary in nature an and must perforce be of sho short duration. It is further observed therein th that if it is for an indetermin inate period or if its renewal is not based o on sound reasoning contem temporaneously available on the record, th the same r would render it punitive i in nature; departmental/disc disciplinary proceedings inva variably commence with delay are plague gued with procrastination pr prior and post the drawing up of the Memo morandum of Charges and ev eventually culminate after even longer delay. elay. In the instant case, the the petitioner was placed under suspensi nsion and according to the he learned counsel appearing for him, there h e has been no review and dis disciplinary proceeding is further delayed and nd that the Memorandum of of Charges containing the list of docume ments and witnesses has not ot been provided to the petitioner. Consider dering such claim with referen rence to the decision of the Apex Court in Ajay Ajay Kumar Choudhury(supra) ra), this Court is of the view that periodical ical review should have been een held by the department in compliance ce thereof. That apart, reques uest for enhancement of subsistence allowance nce in view of Annexure-9 is is pending for decision, as according to the the learned Page 3 of 4 counsel for the pe petitioner and the same is to be responded to to by Mr. Praharaj, learned ed AGA for the State with a reply that a t any such enhancement of su f subsistence allowance shall be subject to the the conduct er. of the petitioner. 8. Having r ng regard to the submissions of learned counse nsel for the respective parties rties and keeping in view the discussion ions made hereinbefore, this this Court is of the conclusion that a dire direction is required to be is e issued to the opposite parties to confirm irm to the procedure in view iew ofG.A. Department Circular dated 30th No November, 2002 and the ra ratio decided by the Apex Court in Ajay jay Kumar Choudhury (supra pra). 9. Hence, i it is ordered. 10. In the r e result, the writ petition stands disposed of of with a direction to oppo pposite party No.2 to furnish and supply th the list of documents and w d witnesses (memos of evidence) to the petit etitioner in accordance with ith the Circular (supra) of the G.A. Dep epartment proposed to be ex e examined vis-a-vis theMemorandum of Charg arges so as to enable him to submit written statement of defen fence and simultaneously to y to review order of suspension and also enhan hancement of subsistence allo allowance as per Annexure-1 and to take a dec decision to expedite the proce roceeding and its closure as soon as possible pr preferably within a period o d of three months from the date of receipt eipt of the orderkeeping in in view the decision in the case of Ajay jay Kumar Choudhury. 11. In the cir
Decision
. e circumstances, however, no order as to costs. 12. Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: ALOK RANJAN SETHY Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT Date: 24-Sep-2024 20:35:15 Alok Issue urg urgent certified copy as per rules. (R.K. Pattanaik) Judge Page 4 of 4