The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C)(OAC) No.509 of 2016 Subrat Kumar Mohanty …. Petitioner Mr. G.R. Sethi, Advocate -versus- Engineer-In-Chief, Water Resources, Odisha & Ors. …. Opposite Parties Mr. M.K. Balabantaray, AGA CORAM: JUSTICE BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY Order No 13. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement
Decision
ORDER 08.12.2023 (Virtual/Physical) Mode. 2. Heard Mr. G.R. Sethi, learned counsel for the Petitioner and Mr. M.K. Balabantaray, learned Addl. Govt. Advocate appearing for the Opp. Parties. 3. The present writ petition has been filed inter alia challenging the order of punishment so passed against the Petitioner vide order dtd.01.07.2015 under Annexure-14 and so confirmed by the Appellate Authority vide order dtd.21.10.2022 under Annexure-15. 4. Learned counsel for the Petitioner contended that in the proceeding initiated against the Petitioner on 08.01.2010 under Annexure-1, Petitioner participated in the said proceeding by filing // 2 // his written statement of defence and also participated in the enquiry. It is contended that the Enquiry Officer after conducting the enquiry submitted his report on 11.06.2010. Petitioner thereafter was issued with the 1st show-cause in order to give his representation against the finding of the Enquiry Officer. Petitioner though submitted his reply, but thereafter when the proceeding was not disposed of, Petitioner approached the Tribunal in O.A. No. 1408(C) of 2014. The Tribunal vide order dtd.25.02.2015 while disposing the matter, directed Opp. Party No. 2 to dispose of the disciplinary proceeding by passing appropriate order on the report of the Enquiry Officer within a period of four (4) months from the date of receipt of the order, failing which the Disciplinary Proceeding is deemed to have been dropped. 4.1. It is contended that on being communicated with the order dtd.25.02.2015, Petitioner was issued with a show-cause on 14.05.2015 under Annexure-10, wherein the Disciplinary Authority asked the Petitioner to submit a fresh representation against the reason assigned by the Disciplinary Authority, for not agreeing with the finding of the Enquiry Officer. It is contended that Petitioner after receipt of Annexure-10, though gave a detailed reply under Anneure-11, but Disciplinary Authority-Opp. Party No. 3 while issuing the 2nd show-cause on 04.06.2015 vide Annexure-12, Page 2 of 7 // 3 // proposed to impose the punishment of withholding of two annual increments with cumulative effect. 4.2. It is contended that against such show-cause issued under Annexure-12, Petitioner once again submitted his reply indicating therein that since the Enquiry Officer has not found any fault with the Petitioner, punishment so proposed is not sustainable in the eye of law and it is not in consonance with the alleged misconduct. It is however contended that the without proper appreciation of the stand taken by the Petitioner in his reply to the 2nd show-cause under Annexure-13, the proceeding was disposed of vide order dtd.01.07.2015 under Annexure-14, by imposing the punishment of stoppage of two annual increments with cumulative effect. 4.3. Learned counsel for the Petitioner contended that against the order of punishment Petitioner though preferred an appeal before the Opp. Party No. 2, but the Appellate Authority as like the Disciplinary Authority without considering the grounds taken in the appeal, rejected the same vide order dtd.21.10.2022 under Annexure-15. 4.4. It is contended by the learned counsel for the Petitioner that since the Enquiry Officer while submitting his report opined to exonerate the Petitioner from the charges, there was no occasion on Page 3 of 7 // 4 // the part of the Opp. Party No. 3 to disagree with such finding and proposing the punishment, which was ultimately imposed on him vide order under Annexure-14. It is also contended that the punishment so imposed is not in consonance with the alleged misconduct. 5. Mr. Balabantaray, learned Addl. Govt. Advocate on the other hand made his submission basing on the stand taken in the counter affidavit. It is contended that since the Petitioner while working as a Tracer, he did not follow the provisions contained under Rule 21 of the Odisha Govt. Servant Conduct Rules, 1959 for his alleged action in acquiring property in his wife’s name, the proceeding under Annexure-1 was initiated with the charges. 5.1. It is contended that even though the Enquiry Officer while submitting the report, opined to exonerate the Petitioner from the charges, but the Disciplinary Authority-Opp. Party No. 3 in terms of the provisions contained under Rule 15(10) of the OCS (CCA) Rules, 1962 disagreed with the said finding of the Enquiry Officer and issued Annexure-10 by giving the reasons for disagreement. The Petitioner was also given an opportunity to file his reply against such disagreement note. After considering the representation submitted by the Petitioner under Annexure-11 Page 4 of 7 // 5 // against the disagreement note, the 2nd show-cause was issued by the Opp. Party No. 3 on 04.06.2015 under Annexure-12 proposing therein to impose punishment of stoppage of two (2) annual increments with cumulative effect. 5.2. It is contended that after due consideration of the reply to the 2nd show-cause and the materials available on record as well as the alleged non-compliance of Rule 21 of the 1959 Rules, the Disciplinary Authority imposed the punishment of stoppage of two annual increments with cumulative effect vide order dtd.01.07.2015 under Annexure-14. The Appellate Authority after going through the appeal memo also found that the Petitioner has been rightly imposed with the punishment and accordingly rejected the appeal vide order dtd.21.10.2022 under Annexure-15. 5.3. It is accordingly contended that the Petitioner was given sufficient opportunity of hearing in the proceeding in question and there is no allegation with regard to non-compliance of any of the provisions contained under OCS (CCA) Rules, 1962. It is accordingly contended that there is no illegality or irregularity with the impugned order of punishment passed under Annexure-14 and so confirmed under Annexure-15. Page 5 of 7 // 6 // 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 against the Petitioner under Annexure-1, the Enquiry Officer though opined to exonerate the Petitioner from the charges, but the Disciplinary Authority-Opp. Party No. 3 while disagreeing with the finding, issued a disagreement note on 14.05.2015 under Annexure-10. After giving an opportunity to the Petitioner to make his representation against such disagreement, the 2nd show-cause was issued by the Opp. Party No. 3 on 04.06.2015 under Annexure-12. The Disciplinary Authority after due consideration of the reply to the 2nd show-cause and the materials available in the proceeding file imposed the order of punishment against the Petitioner vide order dtd.01.07.2015 under Annexure-14 and the same has been confirmed by the Appellate Authority vide order under Annexure-15. This Court after going through the materials placed finds no illegality or irregularity with regard to the conduct of the proceeding and the Petitioner at every point of time was given an opportunity of hearing to prove his innocence. In view of the same, this Court finds no illegality or irregularity with the impugned order of punishment so passed on 01.07.2015 under Annexure-14 and confirmed vide order dtd.21.10.2022 under Annexure-15. Page 6 of 7 // 7 // Accordingly, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the punishment so imposed. However, considering the submission of Mr. Sethi that because of the punishment so imposed, Petitioner was not allowed further increment, this Court observes that after implementation of the order dtd.01.07.2015 under Annexure-14, if the Petitioner is found eligible to get any further increment, the same be extended in his favour. Such an exercise be undertaken and completed within a period of two (2) months from the date of receipt of this order. 7. The writ petition is disposed of with the aforesaid observation and direction. (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: 12-Dec-2023 10:50:12 Page 7 of 7