The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK WPC (OA ) No.2427 of 2016 Ranjan Kumar Behera …. Petitioner Mr. N. Rath, Adv. -versus- State of Odisha & Others …. Opp. Parties CORAM: JUSTICE BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY Mr. M.K. Balabantaray, Addl. Govt. Advocate ORDER 10.01.2024 Order No 5. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual/Physical) Mode. 2. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 3. The present Writ Petition has been filed inter alia with the following prayer: 1. To quash the charge at Annexure-1, the enquiry report at Annexure-3 and show cause notices dated 21.1.2014 and 18.7.2016 at Annexures-5 and 8 declaring the same not to be in accordance with the statutory provision as well as procedure prescribed in OCS (CC & A ) Rules, 1962 and OCS (Pension) Rules, 1992. 2. Further to quash the order of punishment dated 20.09.2016 at Annexure-10 declaring the same to be illegal, unconstitutional and highly disproportionate. 3. To direct the respondents to release the pension and other pensionary benefits of the applicant as per his entitlement without being influenced by the Annexure-10 punishment order, within a time frame to be stipulated by the Hon’ble Tribunal. 4. To grant any relief/reliefs as deemed fit and proper.= 4. It is the case of the Petitioner that Petitioner while continuing as a DSP and posted at Bolangir, a proceeding was initiated against him under Rule 15 of the OCS(CCA) Rules, 1962 (in short, <The Rules=) on
Legal Reasoning
22.10.2009 under Annexure-1. It is contended that on receipt of the memorandum along with charges, // 2 // Petitioner though made an application on 04.11.2009, 19.11.2009 and 07.12.2009 under Annexure-2 series with a prayer to supply him the relevant documents for filing of written statement of defence, but the documents were never submitted. In the meantime, the Petitioner also retired from his service on attaining the age of superannuation on 30.04.2010. 4.1. After retirement of the Petitioner, the proceeding continued with appointment of the Inquiry Officer on 25.08.2011. The Inquiry Officer after conducting the Inquiry, held the Petitioner guilty of the charges while submitting his report on 22.08.2013. The Petitioner thereafter was issued with the 1st show-cause in terms of the provisions contained under Rule 15 of the Rules on 06.09.2013 along with the enquiry report under Annexure-3. The Petitioner on receipt of the 1st show- cause though submitted his reply under Annexure-4 by taking a stand that the Petitioner was seriously prejudiced due to non-supply of the documents, but Opp. Party No.1-Disciplianry Authority without considering the said plea of the Petitioner in its proper prospective issued the 2nd show-cause on 31.08.2014 under Annexure-5 proposing therein to impose the punishment of 10% cut in monthly pension for three (3) years. 4.2 The Petitioner on receipt of the 2nd show-cause also submitted his reply under Annexure-6 on 21.10.2014 inter alia taking similar stand that he was prejudiced due to non-supply of documents and the Page 2 of 9 // 3 // enquiry since conducted in absence of such documents, Petitioner could not put forth his grievance before the Inquiry Officer for which he was found guilty of the charges. 4.3. It is contended that on receipt of the reply to the 2nd show-cause and prior to imposition of the punishment as provided under Rule 15, Government- Opp. Party No.1 moved the Orissa Public Service Commission seeking its opinion with regard to the proposed punishment. It is contended that while the Disciplinary Authority in the 2nd show-cause issued under Annexure-5 proposed the punishment of 10% cut in pension for three (3) years, but the Commission without any reason or basis recommend to impose punishment of 10% cut in monthly pension for ten(10) years. 4.4. It is contended that on receipt of the recommendation from the Commission, Petitioner was again issued with a show-cause by Opp. Party No.1 on 18.07.2016 under Annexure-8 proposing therein to impose the punishment so recommended by OPSC. Petitioner though submitted his reply under Annexure- 9, but without proper appreciation of the petitioner’s stand so taken all through regarding non-supply of documents and the prejudice caused to him, the Disciplinary authority without proper appreciation of the same, while disposing the proceeding vide the impugned order dt.20.09.2016 under Annexure-10, imposed the punishment of 10% cut in monthly pension for 10(ten) years Page 3 of 9 // 4 // 4.5. Learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner accordingly contended that since after initiation of the proceeding in spite of several requests, Petitioner was never provided with the documents in question, the Inquiry Officer at the first instance should not have proceeded with the enquiry by holding him guilty of the charges. Similarly, in his reply to the 1st and 2nd show- cause and the reply made after receipt of the recommendation of the Commission, Petitioner though took the stand that he was prejudiced due to non- supply of the documents, but the said fact was never taken into consideration by Opp. Party No.1 prior to imposition of the impugned order of punishment vide order under Annexure-10. It is accordingly contended that the impugned order of punishment is not sustainable in the eye of law and liable for interference of this Court. 5. Mr. M.K. Balabantary, learned Addl. Govt. Advocate on the other hand made his submission basing on the stand taken in the counter affidavit. 5.1. In support of the punishment so imposed, learned Addl. Govt. Advocate brought to the notice of the Court, the charge framed against the Petitioner under Annexure-1. The charge so framed against the Petitioner vide Annexure-1 is produced hereunder. Article of Charge. Sri Ranjan Kumar Behera, OPS, Ex-Dy. S.P.(C ), Bolangir at present Addl. Superintendent of Police, SIW, Bhubaneswar, is charged with gross misconduct and dereliction of duty as follows: Article of Charge. Page 4 of 9 // 5 // That M/s Duryodhan Herbal Homes, Kolkata had filed a complaint that his patent product <VOLTAIC BALM= was being illegally manufactured by M/s. Shakarlal Agrawal and marketed by M/s. Anil Brothers of Kantabanji in the district of Bolangir. The petition was entrusted to Sri Behera for enquiry by the S.P, Bolangir. Sri Behera submitted an interim euqniry report on 10.03.2005 indicating that local persons could not tell anything about Gutka and Ayrbed Medicine Factory which existed at that time. He indicated that due to short and limited time, detailed enquiry could not be conducted properly. However he had assured to conduct further enquiry in detail. When efforts of the Petitioner to initiate action against fake manufacture of his patent product did not yield any result, he filed Writ Petition No.8660/2005 before the Hon’ble High Court, Orissa requesting for direction to D.G.P, Orissa, Cuttack to ensure legal action against the fake drug manufacturer. Sri Behera was again entrusted to enquire into the allegations in order to submit the parawise compliance to the aforesaid Writ Petition. Wri Behera submitted another enquiry report on dtd.11.07.2005 indicating that the allegation of fake manufacturing and marketing of such balm was not true. Basing on his enquiry submitted parawise compliance on the aforesaid Writ Petition to the Advocate General, Orissa, stating that on local enquiry no such illegally manufacturing or seeing of Voltaic Balm could be noticed in the jurisdiction of any Police Station of Bolangir District. report, S.P, Bolangir an and detected On 20.07.12007, staff of Kantabanji P.S conducted search in the premises of M/s. Shamkarlal Agarwal of Kantabanjni illegal medicine manufacturing unit and seized huge quantities of fake VOLTAIC BALM with changed name as VALITAC BALM along with tins and labels, leading to registration of Kantabanji P.S. Case NO.92/07. The investigation into Kantabanji P.S. Case NBo.92/07 which was subsequently taken over by CID, CB revealed that manufacturing of fake medicine including Voltaic Balm and their marketing by Sri Sankarlal Agarwal & his family members was going on for quite some time in Kantabanji & other areas of Bolangir district. Bill books seized by Commercial Tax Officer from the Business premises of accused Sankarlal Agarwal revealed fake drug V. Balm was being manufactured and marketed in different areas of Bolangir during 2004 to 2007 without any authority. Hence, it is evident that the enquiry conducted by Sri Behera into the allegations regarding manufacture and sale of fake VOLTAIC BALM was perfunctory. that the His above acts amount to gross misconduct and dereliction of duty. As such, he violated Rule-3 of Orissa Government servant conduct rules-1959. Hence the charge.= 5.2. Placing reliance on the gravity of the charge, learned Addl. Govt. Advocate contended that Petitioner Page 5 of 9 // 6 // while continuing as D.S.P at Bolangir with oblique motive, in spite of several direction, did not take up the issue with regard to manufacturing of huge quantities of fake medicine by one Firm in the name and style <M/s. Shankarlal Agrawal=. When the fact was brought to the notice pursuant to the order passed by this Court C.I.D, C.B took up the investigation and clearly found the alleged manufacturing of fake medicine by the firm in question. Therefore, it is quite apparent that Petitioner with vested interest did not take any action to bring the truth regarding manufacturing of fake medicine by the Firm in question. 5.3 Learned Additional Govt. Advocate accordingly contended that since the Petitioner who was a responsible Officer at the relevant point of time intentionally and deliberately did not bring the truth to light and the said truth came to light after C.I.D, CB took over the investigation, Petitioner has been rightly imposed with the punishment which requires no interference of this Court. 5.4. It is also contended that all through the Petitioner was provided with opportunity of hearing and the provisions contained under Rule 15 of the OCS (CCA) Rules, 1962, vis-(cid:224)-vis Rule 7 of the OCS (Pension) Rule, 1992 was scrupulously followed prior to imposition of order of punishment vide order under Annexure-10. Since it is not the case of the Petitioner that the Petitioner was not provided with the opportunity save and except the stand that he was not provided with the documents, there is no illegality or irregularity with Page 6 of 9 // 7 // regard to the order of punishment so imposed against the Petitioner. 5.5. Learned Addl. Govt. Advocate also brought to the notice of this Court the documents annexed vide Annexure-A to the counter wherein the present Petitioner after receipt of the notice vide Annexure-1 submitted his written statement of defence on 31.12.2009. In the said written statement of defence, Petitioner also admits about the supply of the authenticated copies of the documents by the S.P, C.I.D, C.B vide letter dt.23.12.2009. The stand taken in para-1 of the written statement of defence vide Annexure-A is reproduced hereunder. <In obedience to Para-3 of Home Department Memorandum NO.467943/SPS, dated 22.10.2009, the undersigned requested the Superintendent of Police, CID, Crime Branch, Orissa, Cuttack to supply the authentic relevant extracts of the records listed in the memo of Evidences (as per Annexure-III) to enable the undersigned to submit his written statement of defence within the stipulated time vide letter No.2078/SIW, dated 04.11.2009 with a copy to Home Department (Memo NO.2079(3)/SIW, dated 04.11.2009). The S.P. CID, CB supplied the copies of the authentic documents vide letter NO.37372/CB.UT, dated 23.12.2009.= 5.6. Learned counsel appearing for the State accordingly contended that taking into account the nature of allegation and the gravity of the charges, petitioner has been rightly imposed with the punishment which requires no interference of this Court. 6. Having heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and after going through the materials available on record, this Court finds that Petitioner while continuing as D.S.P at Bolangir, proceeding under Page 7 of 9 // 8 // Annexure-1 was initiated against him on 22.10.2009. This Court finds that in spite of due opportunities being given to the Petitioner to cause enquiry and submit his report with regard to fake manufacturing of huge quantities of medicine by a Firm, Petitioner on both the occasion while submitting the report contended that there is no such fake manufacturing of medicine by the Firm in question. When the matter was handed over for inquiry to C.I.D, CB, pursuant to the order passed by this Court, C.I.D, CB while submitting the report clearly held regarding the manufacturing of fake medicine by the self-same firm which was not held responsible by the Petitioner in his two earlier report. It is also found from the record that even though Petitioner is taking the stand that he was prejudiced due to non-supply of the documents, but while going through the written statement of defence filed by the Petitioner under Annexure-A, he clearly admits that he was supplied with the documents vide SP, CID, CB, vide letter No. dt.23.12.2009. Therefore, the stand taken by the Petitioner that he was prejudiced due to non-supply of documents is not acceptable to this Court. 6.1. With regard to the allegation made by the Petitioner that on the face of the proposed punishment indicated in the 2nd show-cause under Annexure-5, O.P.S.C on being consulted illegally recommended to enhance the punishment vide its opinion dt.19.12.2015 under Annexure-7, this Court finds no illegality or irregularity with such recommendation of the O.P.S.C on the face of the charges framed against the Petitioner. It is also found that the proceeding in question was Page 8 of 9 // 9 // conducted strictly in accordance with law under Rule- 15 of the OCS (CCA) Rules, r/w Rule-7 of the OCS (Pension) Rule, 1992. The Petitioner as found from the record has been given due opportunity of hearing at every stage of the proceeding. 6.2. In such view of the matter, this Court finds no illegality or irregularity with the impugned order of punishment and accordingly not inclined to interfere with the same.
Decision
The Writ Petition is accordingly dismissed. (Biraja Prasanna Satapathy) Judge sangita Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: SANGITA PATRA Reason: authentication of order Location: high court of orissa, cuttack Date: 18-Jan-2024 11:00:09 Page 9 of 9