The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C) No.33003 of 2020 Smt. Nilima Debnath Petitioner Mr. U.C. Mishra, Advocate …. -Versus- State of Odisha & Others Opposite Parties Mr. J.P. Patra, ASC Mr. D. Tripathy, Advocate (O.P. No.7) Mr. S.K. Dalai, Advocate for O.P.No.13 CORAM: MR. JUSTICE R.K. PATTANAIK
Decision
ORDER 09.04.2024 Order No. 17. 1. Heard Mr. Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Patra, learned ASC for the State opposite party Nos.1 to 5, Mr. Tripathy, learned counsel for opposite party No.7 and learned counsel for opposite party No.13. 2. Instant writ petition is filed by the petitioner for a joint verification and enquiry vis-à-vis the subject matter involved by learned SP, Kendrapara other than SDPO, namely, opposite party No.6 on the grounds stated therein. 3. Mr. Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the joint enquiry was not properly held and it is again at the behest the SLSC with the participation of opposite party No.6, who himself submitted a report contrary to the one received from the local Tahasildar and such report is in complete ignorance of Annexures-9 to 15 to the rejoinder affidavit. In fact, Mr. Mishra alleges malafide against opposite party No.6 for having not taken cognizance of the relevant material before Page 1 of 4 submission of the joint enquiry report. It is claimed that such report has been accepted by the SLSC, namely, opposite party No.2, hence, therefore, the petitioner is severely prejudiced. It is pleaded that the report of opposite party No.6 should not be accepted and acted upon by opposite party No.2. 4. Referring to the counter affidavit filed through opposite party No.5, Mr. Patra, learned ASC for the State would submit that there has been a detailed enquiry by opposite party No.6 taking care of all the facts and therefore, no reason lies to reject the same and that apart, it has to be considered by the Committee, whether to accept it or otherwise, Mr. Patra further submits that no case of malafide is prima facie proved and established, hence, therefore, there is no need for interference with the report at the instance of the Court. Learned counsel for opposite party No.7 justifies the action and also the report of opposite party No.6 and according to him, the same is based on the material collected during enquiry. Mr. Dalai, learned counsel for opposite party No.13 submits that the very competence of opposite party No.2 is under challenge in the light of the rules and with reference to the Apex Court decision in Kumari Madhuri Patil and others Vrs. Additional Commissioner, Tribal Development and others AIR 1995 SC 94, which is presently pending decision in WA No.321 of 2023. 5. In fact, the report of opposite party No.6 found to be contradictory to the finding and conclusion reached at by the local Tahasildar and therefore, opposite party No.2 requested opposite party Nos.3 and 5 to hold a joint enquiry, later to which, the report was submitted. In fact, the joint enquiry report involved opposite party No.6 and therefore, the petitioner is apprehensive of malafide. As it is made to understand, later to the receipt of reports from opposite party No.6 and opposite party No.4, such a direction was issued by opposite party No.2 vide Annexure-5 and before that, even an objection was invited from the petitioner, which was received from him, a copy of which as at Page 2 of 4 Annexure-4, later to the notice vide Annexure-3. The fact of the matter is that earlier, an enquiry was held by opposite party No.6 and he was also a party to the joint enquiry held pursuant to Annexure-5, hence, therefore, the petitioner is of the view that there may be bias against him on the claim of the caste status, a matter of which is pending consideration before opposite party No.2. 6. Gone through the joint enquiry report as at Annexure-D/5 to the counter affidavit. It is made to suggest that such an enquiry was held and finally, the report i.e. Annexure-D/5 was received by opposite party No.2. Whether, opposite party No.6 did ignore the relevant documents, such as, Annexures-9 to 15 to the rejoinder affidavit and if at all, there was any bias and malafide vis-à-vis the petitioner, merely by referring to Annexure-D/5, it is not prima facie established. Mr. Mishra, learned 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 is of conclusion that irrespective of any such decision of this Court under challenge in WA 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 materials are on record filed through rejoinder affidavit with the bias Page 3 of 4 alleged for being the joint enquiry having not been properly held, the Court is also the conclusion that all such aspects shall have to be examined by opposite party No.2 at the time of disposal of the proceeding 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. 7. 8. Hence, it is ordered. In the result, the writ petition stands disposed of with the direction as aforesaid. The Court directs that any such decision by opposite party No.2 on the caste status of the petitioner shall be after considering the entire of the evidence received and dealing with all the aspects highlighted upon hereinabove and points involved on merit and in accordance with law, however, subject to the result in WA No.321 of 2023. 9. Urgent certified copy of this order be issued as per rules. (R.K. Pattanaik) Judge Tudu Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: THAKURDAS TUDU Designation: Sr. Stenographer Reason: Authentication Location: OHC,CTC Date: 10-Apr-2024 20:06:08 Page 4 of 4