The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK WPC (OAC) No.3910 of 2017 Satya Narayan Rath …. Petitioner Mr. S.N. Biswal, Adv. -versus- A. State of Odisha & Others … Opp. Parties Mr. M.K. Balabantaray, Addl. Govt. Advocate CORAM: JUSTICE BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY Order No
Decision
ORDER 07.05.2024 10. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual/Physical) Mode. 2. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 3. Petitioner has filed the present Writ Petition inter alia challenging the order of dt. 18.12.2017 so passed by Opp. Party No.4. 4. It is contended that for the alleged mis-conduct, Petitioner was proceeded with Departmentally and vide order dt. 28.04.2017 under Annexuire-14 petitioner was imposed with punishment of two(2) black marks and period of suspension was treated as such. Simultaneously, basing on complaint made by one Monoj Jena, a human rights activist NHRC took up the matter and without giving any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and basing on the direction issued by the NHRC, the impugned order was passed by Opp. Party No.3 wherein Petitioner was saddled with recovery of an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- to be paid in 10(ten) equal instalments commencing from December, 2017. 4.1. Learned counsel for the Petitioner contended that Petitioner was never a party to the proceeding before the NHRC and no notice was ever issued to him. Not only that NHRC vide order dt.17.02.2017 while disposing the matter held the bereaved family of the deceased eligible to receive compensation amount of Rs.1,00,000/- and asked the State Government to comply the same. On receipt of order dt.17.02.2017, the impugned order dt.18.12.2017 under Annexure-16 was issued directing for recovery of the compensation amount of Rs.1,00,000/- from the Petitioner. It is accordingly contended that since Petitioner was never a party to the proceeding before NHRC and NHRC while holding the victim family entitled to get compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- directed the State Government to pay the same, the same could not be recovered from the Petitioner in terms of the impugned order, which has also been passed without complying the principle of natural justice. The stand taken in para 6.20 of the Writ Petition in support of the plea that Petitioner is not liable to pay the amount, reads as follows: “6.20. That, the main grounds of challenge in the aforesaid order of recovery are as follows: (a) The said order of recovery is without jurisdiction and authority. (b) The said order of recovery suffers from double jeopardy under Article 20(2) of the Constitution of India. (c) Prior to the said order during the proceeding before the NHRC, the applicant was not given any notice nor was made a party to the said proceeding. Therefore, the said order is violation of the principles of natural justice and Article 311 of the Constitution of India. (d) The applicant is not solely responsible for the death of Krutibas Mohapatra. There are other incumbents who are also responsible for the said untoward incident. Therefore instead of making the applicant scapegoat the other incumbents should have been held responsible and thus the order of recovery from the applicant’s salary is wholly illegal and discriminatory. Page 2 of 4 (e) When the statutory appeal is pending before the appellate authority with regard to the punishment imposed on the applicant under Annexure-14 and 15 at that time the order of recovery is wholly unsustainable in the eye of law. (f) The aforesaid order of recovery is otherwise illegal, arbitrary, tainted with mala fide, without jurisdiction and violation of the principles of natural justice so also violation of Articles 20(2) and 311 of the Constitution of India.” 4.2. It is contended that since Petitioner was never a party to the proceeding before the NHRC, Petitioner is not liable to pay the compensation as directed vide the impugned orderdt.18.12.2017 under Annexure-16, which has been issued by Opp. Party No.1 5. Mr. M.K. Balabantaray, learned Addl. Govt. Advocate on the other hand made his submission basing on the stand taken in the counter affidavit so filed by Opp. Parties. 5.1. It is contended that Petitioner though was proceeded with Departmentally, but taking into account the complaint made under Annexure-H/1, Opp. Party No.1 submitted a report and basing on the said report, NHRC directed to pay a compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- to the victim’s family. 5.2. Since for the latches of the petitioner, such a compensation was awarded and state complied the same, Opp. Party No.4 by holding the Petitioner liable to pay, directed for recovery of the compensation amount of Rs.1,00,000/- from the petitioner vide the impugned order dt.18.12.2017 under Annexure-16. 5.3. Learned Addl. Govt. Advocate also contended that the present Writ Petition suffers from non-joinder of necessary parties, as NHRC has not been impleaded as a party to the proceeding, basing on whose direction, the impugned order was passed. Page 3 of 4 6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and considering the submissions made, this Court finds that for the alleged negligence on the part of the Petitioner, he was proceeded with in the Departmental proceeding and in the said proceeding he was imposed with the punishment vide order dt.27.04.2017 under Annexure-14. During pendency of the appeal so filed against the order dt.27.04.2017 before the appellate authority, the impugned order was communicated to the Petitioner wherein he was directed to pay compensation amount of Rs.1,00,000/- in 10 equal monthly instalment. 6.1. This Court after going through the records finds that Petitioner was never noticed by the NHRC while directing the Government to pay the compensation amount of Rs.1,00,000/-. The stand taken by the Petitioner in para 6.20 of the Writ petition that he is not liable to pay the amount has also not been controverted by the Opp. Parties while filing the counter. In view of the aforesaid analysis, this Court is of the view that Petitioner is not liable to pay the compensation amount as directed vide the impugned order dt.18.12.2017 under Annexuire-16. Therefore, this Court is inclined to quash the order dt.18.12.2017 so passed by Opp. Party No.4 under Annexure-16 and quash the same accordingly. The Writ Petition is accordingly disposed of. (Biraja Prasanna Satapathy) Judge sangita Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: SANGITA PATRA Reason: authenticatin of order Location: high court of orissa, cuttack Date: 09-May-2024 18:21:30 Page 4 of 4