The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.C.(OA) No.2509 of 2015 Pitambar Kanhar …. Petitioner Mr. N. Rath, Advocate -versus- State of Odisha & Ors. …. Opposite Parties Mr. H.K. Panigrahi, ASC CORAM: JUSTICE BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY
Decision
ORDER 24.08.2023 Order No 06. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual/Physical) Mode. 2. Heard Mr. N. Rath, learned counsel for the Petitioner and Mr. H.K. Panigrahi, learned Addl. Standing Counsel appearing for the Opp. Parties. 3. The Petitioner has filed the present writ petition challenging the impugned order of punishment so passed on 09.03.2015 under Annexure-10. 4. It is contended that the Petitioner while continuing as a Tahasildar, a proceeding was initiated against him vide Memorandum dtd.24.08.1998 under Annexure-3. It is contended that on receipt of the charges though Petitioner time and again requested the authority to supply the documents for enabling him to file his written statement of defence, but those documents were never supplied to him. // 2 // 4.1. Instead of providing the documents and in absence of the written statement of defence, Disciplinary Authority proceeded with the enquiry and after receipt of the enquiry report under Annexure-5, show-cause notices were issued to the Petitioner in terms of Rule 15 of the OCS (CCA) Rules, 1962. 4.2. In his reply to the 1st show-cause vide Annexure-7 though Petitioner took a specific stand that the documents were never provided to him and no written statement of defence accordingly could be filed, but the said fact was not taken into consideration by the Opp. Party No. 1 and 2nd show-cause was issued proposing the punishment in question vide Annexure-8. Petitioner again while submitting his reply to the 2nd show-cause though requested for supply of the documents, but that were never provided and in absence of that the impugned order of punishment was passed under Annexure-10. 4.3. It is accordingly contended that since Petitioner was seriously prejudiced due to non-supply of documents and non-filing of written statement of defence, the action of the authority in going for the enquiry and imposing the order of punishment basing on such enquiry report under Annexure-10 is not sustainable in the eye of law. 5. Mr. Panigrahi, learned Addl. Standing Counsel made his submission basing on the stand taken in the counter affidavit so filed by the Opp. Party No. 1. It is contended that on initiation of the proceeding though Petitioner vide letter dtd.11.01.1999 and 26.02.1999 was allowed time to file his written statement of defence by perusing the record, but he did not avail such benefit. Accordingly, Petitioner cannot take the stand that he was never Page 2 of 5 // 3 // provided with the documents. It is also contended that since in spite of being given opportunity, Petitioner did not peruse the records and did not submit the written statement of defence and he also participated in the enquiry, no illegality has been committed by the authority in imposing the order of punishment under Annexure-10. 6. Having heard learned counsel appearing for the Parties and after going through the materials available on record, it is found that on initiation of the proceeding under Annexure-3, Petitioner asked for the documents in order to enable him to file his written statement of defence vide Annexure-4 series. It is also found that when Petitioner was not provided with the documents, he could not file his written statement of defence and on completion of the enquiry while giving his reply to the 1st show-cause under Annexure-7, petitioner also took similar stand that he was never provided with the documents and accordingly he was prejudiced with regard to conduct of the proceeding. 6.1. The said fact though has been disputed by the Opp. Parties in their counter by indicating that Petitioner in spite of opportunity did not peruse the documents, but no such letter as indicated in Para 6 of the counter is enclosed to the counter affidavit. In absence of any such document the stand taken by the Opp. Party No. 1 in Para 6 of the counter affidavit cannot be accepted. 6.2. It is also found from the counter affidavit that with regard to non-supply of the documents, which is the prime plank of the Petitioner in challenging the impugned order of punishment, nothing has been indicated that the documents were provided to the Petitioner at any point of time. Since Petitioner was never provided with the documents in spite of several requests made under Page 3 of 5 // 4 // Annexure-4 series, it is the view of this Court that the Petitioner was prejudiced due to non-supply of the documents and non-filing of the written statement of defence. 6.3. Therefore, this Court in view of such material irregularity committed by the authority in not providing the documents, is inclined to quash the impugned order of punishment so passed on 09.03.2015 under Annexure-10. While quashing the same, this Court remits the matter to Opp. Party No. 1 to take up the proceeding from the stage of filing of the written statement of defence. This Court directs Opp. Party No. 1 to provide the documents as required to the Petitioner within a period of four (4) weeks from the date of receipt of this order. On being provided with the documents, Petitioner will file his written statement of defence within a further period of six (6) weeks and no further time will be allowed for that purpose. On receipt of the written statement of defence Opp. Party No. 1 shall proceed with the enquiry by appointing a fresh Enquiry Officer and conclude the proceeding in all respect within a period of six (6) months thereafter. Since the Petitioner has retired in the meantime, this Court directs Opp. Party No. 1 to conclude the proceeding within the aforesaid time period positively. Petitioner is also directed to co-operate with the enquiry and for disposal of the proceeding in question. Petitioner will not ask for any time during conduct of the proceeding in question. Proceeding will be concluded in accordance with law as the Petitioner has retired in the meantime. Petitioner is directed to produce a copy of this order before Opp. Party No. 1 within a period of 7 (seven) days from the date of receipt for compliance. Page 4 of 5 // 5 // 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: Jr. Stenographer Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Date: 28-Aug-2023 11:35:13 Page 5 of 5