The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK WPC(OAC) No.3332 of 2018 ..... Raghunath Mishra Petitioner Mr. M.R. Sarangi, Advocate State of Odisha&Ors. -versus- ..... CORAM: Opposite Parties Mr. C.M. Singh, ASC THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY ORDER 22.11.2024 Order No.05 1. This matter is taken up through hybrid mode. 2. Pursuant to the order passed by this Court on 30.10.2024, learned Addl. Standing Counsel produced the instruction so provided by the Department vide letter dtd.13.11.2024. The same be kept in record. Instruction so provided reads as follows:- “To The Advocate General, Odisha, Cuttack Ref: - WPC (OAC) No. 3332 of 2018 filed by Raghunath Mishra vrs State of Odisha & others. Sub: Submission of compliance to order dated 30.10.2024. Sir, In inviting a reference on the subject cited above, the compliance to the observation of Hon'ble Court as regards to point No.3 is as follows:-
Legal Reasoning
The petitioner Sri Raghunath Mishra Ex- F.O, CID, CB filed an Appeal petition against his dismissal order in the year 1995. As per the available record it was found that the parawise comments has been submitted by the then Addl.SP CID, CB in the year 2005. He opined that, "The petitioner deserve no Page 1 of 6. consideration and is liable to be rejected". Copy of letter No.4985/CB, RO dated 5.2.2005 is enclosed as Annexure 'A'. The matter was brought to the notice of the then IGP who sought clarification regarding the exact date of receipt of the appeal petition of Sri Raghunath Mishra Ex-F.O, CID,CB. Copy enclosed as Annexure 'B'. In response to observation of IGP, SP CID,CB submitted a report vide letter No.20539/RO.CB dated 6.6.2005 regarding receipt of petition on 4.9.1995 and due to inaction of RSIs CID,CB the parawise comments on the appeal petition could not be submitted in time. Copy enclosed as Annexure 'C'. Subsequently the grievance petition of Raghunath Mishra again received from Govt. of Odisha, Home Department, Bhubaneswar vide letter No.30376 /PMC, dated 12.7.2018 which forwarded from the office of Hon'ble Prime Minister India. While disposing the petition ADG, CID, CB has rejected it without having any merit vide order No.34115/RO- CB dated 1.9.2018. The order has already been communicated to Govt. And petitioner with proper acknowledgement. Copy enclosed as Annexure ‘D’. This is for favour of your kind information and necessary action please.” 3. Heard Mr. M.R. Sarangi, learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner and Mr. C.M. Singh, learned Addl. Standing Counsel appearing for the Opp. Parties. 4. The present writ petition has been filed inter alia with the following prayer:- “In circumstances stated above the applicant prays:- (a) Let the order of dismissal passed by Respondent No. 4 dtd.7.8.1995 vide annexure-5 and the findings of the appellate authority (Respondent No. 3) vide annexure-12 be quashed directing such authorities to regularise the service of the Page 2 of 6. applicant and held the leave from 1.2.1994 to 15.4.1994 and 16.4.1994 to 3.5.1994 as genuine Level and give all Departmental and financial benefit such as promotion and release of legitimate monetary dues in favour of the applicant is an usual course. (b) Let any order (s)/direction (s) be passed as this Hon’ble Tribunal may deem fit and proper to afford complete relief to the applicant.” 5. Learned counsel for the Petitioner contended that in the proceeding initiated against him vide CIDCB Proceeding No. 2/1994 Petitioner was imposed with the punishment vide order dtd.02.08.1994 and vide the said order Petitioner was dismissed from his services. It is contended that the proceeding in question was initiated against the Petitioner for his alleged unauthorized absence from duty in two phases i.e. from 01.02.1994 to 15.04.1994 and 16.04.1994 to 03.05.1994. 5.1. It is contended that in the proceeding so initiated, Petitioner though produced various documents showing the reason for remaining on unauthorized absence for the period from 01.02.1994 to 15.04.1994 and 16.04.1994 to 03.05.1994, but the disciplinary authority without proper appreciation of the same and without assigning any reason passed the order of dismissal vide order dtd.02.08.1994 under Annexure-5. 5.2. It is contended that challenging such order of punishment Petitioner though preferred an appeal before the appellate authority - Opp. Party No. 2 on 28.10.1995 under Annexure-6, but the same was kept pending till the appeal was rejected vide order dtd.27.08.2018 under Annexure-12. Page 3 of 6. 5.3. Learned counsel for the Petitioner contended that since Petitioner challenging the order of punishment preferred an appeal within the prescribed time period, the appellate authority should have considered the same with passing of appropriate order within a reasonable time. But without any reason the appeal was kept pending till the same was disposed of with the order of rejection vide order dtd.27.08.2018 under Annexure-12. 5.4. It is contended that because of such inaction on the part of the appellate authority, Petitioner could not avail further remedy so available to him and in the meantime he also attained the age of superannuation. It is accordingly contended that because of the in action on the part of Opp. Party No. 2 not only Petitioner suffered but also he was deprived to get all service benefit as due and admissible. 5.5. It is contended that had the appellate authority disposed of the appeal within a reasonable time, Petitioner could have taken further action in the matter. It is also contended that as the Petitioner was dismissed from his services on flimsy ground i.e. for remaining on unauthorized absent for a short period, in all likelihood Petitioner would have been exonerated from the charges by the higher forum. But because of the inaction on the part of the appellate authority, he failed to avail the said remedy and in the meantime he also attained the age of superannuation. It is accordingly contended that appropriate order be passed in the interest of justice and fair play. 6. Even though the matter was filed before the Tribunal on 31.12.2018 and after closure of the Tribunal the matter was transferred to this Court and this Court on different occasion Page 4 of 6. allowed time to the State Counsel to file the counter affidavit, but no counter affidavit has been filed as yet. 6.1. Basing on the instruction provided today learned Addl. Standing Counsel contended that because of some intradepartmental problem, the appeal could not be disposed of within a reasonable time. It is however contended that since Petitioner while continuing in service, remained on unauthorized absent and a proceeding was initiated against him and in the said proceeding he has been punished with the order of dismissal, Petitioner is not eligible and entitled to get any further relief. It is also contended that the order of dismissal has been confirmed by the appellate authority vide order dtd.27.08.2018 with passing of a reasoned order. 7. Having heard learned counsel appearing for the Parties and considering the submissions made, this Court finds that Petitioner while continuing in service proceeding was initiated against him with the allegation that he remained on unauthorized absence for the period from 01.02.1994 to 15.04.1994 and 16.04.1994 to 03.05.1994. 7.1. As found, in the said proceeding the disciplinary authority without proper appreciation of the reply submitted by the Petitioner the 2nd show-cause on the materials available issued and dt.06.05.1995 under Annexure-3 proposing to impose the punishment of dismissal. Opp. Party No. 3 thereafter without proper appreciation of the reply submitted on 08.06.1995 under Annexure- 4, passed the order of punishment vide CBDO No. 1012 dt.02.08.1994 (should have been 02.08.1995) under Annexure-5. Page 5 of 6. 7.2. Against such order of punishment Petitioner though preferred an appeal under Annexure-6 on 28.10.1995, but the same was never considered within a reasonable time period and the appeal was only rejected vide order dtd.27.08.2018. 7.2. Taking into such inaction on the part of the appellate authority in taking more than 23 years to dispose of the appeal and since in the meantime Petitioner has attained the age of superannuation, this Court on the face of the order of punishment is of the view that Petitioner is eligible and entitled to get the benefit of compassionate allowance as provided under Rule 46 of the OCS (Pension) Rules, 1992. 7.3. While holding so, this Court directs Opp. Party Nos. 1 & 2 to take effective step for sanction of the compassionate allowance as provided under rule 46 of the Rules within a period of three (3) months from the date of receipt of this order. Petitioner will also be entitled to get such allowance from the date of his retirement and the arrear entitlement as due and admissible shall also be released in his favour along with current benefit.
Decision
8. The writ petition accordingly stands disposed of. (BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY) Judge Sneha Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: SNEHANJALI PARIDA Designation: Sr. Stenographer Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Date: 25-Nov-2024 11:08:18 Page 6 of 6.