The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK WPC (OAC ) No.1284 of 2017 Narasimha Pradhan …. Petitioner Mr. B.S. Rayaguru, Adv. -versus- State of Odisha & Others …. Opp. Parties
Legal Reasoning
Mr. S. Jena, AGA CORAM: JUSTICE BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY
Decision
ORDER 29.10.2024 Order No 10. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual/Physical) Mode. 2. Heard learned counsel appearing for the parties. 3. Petitioner has filed the present writ petition inter alia challenging the order of punishment passed by Opp. Party No.4 dt.31.05.2013 under Annexure-9 and confirmed by Opp. Party No.3 vide order dt.28.09.2014 under Annexure-10. 4. Learned counsel for the Petitioner contended that Petitioner because of his involvement in Bolangir Town P.S.Case No.03 dt.05.01.2010 was faced with the proceeding initiated vide Annexure-1 series. The charge framed against the Petitioner under Annexure-2 reveals as follows: // 2 // Charge “OASI Narasingha Pradhan of Twon PS, Bolangir is charged with gross mis-conduct in that, While he was posted to Town P.S Bolangir, he was involved in Town PS Case No.03 dt.05.01.2010 under Section 379/468/471 IPC for commission of theft of a Hero Honda CD-100 SS Motorcycle bearing Regd. No.OR 03 5983 and forging the documents of the said Motorcycle for transferring the ownership of the M/c in his name which amounts to gross misconduct and moral turpitude on the part of a responsible Police Officer. He is therefore directed to submit his show cause by 25.06.2010 as to why suitable departmental action shall not be taken against him in the event of the charges being held proved against him. Any representation that he wises to make in this regard will be duly considered by the authority competent to pass final order before passing such order. 4.1. Learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner contended that on the face of the charge so framed under Annexure-2, the Petitioner was imposed with the punishment of withholding increment for six (6) months with cumulative effect carrying the value of one (1) Black Mark and treated the suspension period from 05.01.2010 P.M to 24.07.2010 A.M. as such vide order dt.31.05.2013 under Annexure-9 so confirmed under Annexure-10. It is contended that the Departmental Proceedings should have been dropped basing on which Petitioner was imposed with the punishment, in view of the recent decision of the Hon’ le Apex Court in the case of Ram Lal VS. State of Rajasthan and Others, Civil Appeal NO. 7935 of 2023. It is accordingly contended that such order of punishment is not sustainable in the eye of law. Hon’ble Apex Court // 3 // taking into account the order of acquittal passed in similar nature of case came to the following finding in paragraph- 31 of the judgment. “31. Accordingly, we set aside the judgment of the (Writ) No.484 of 2011 dated D.B Special Appeal 05.09.2018. We direct that the appellant shall be reinstated with all consequential benefits including seniority, notional promotions, fitment of salary and all other benefits. As far as backwages are concerned, we are inclined to award the appellant 50% of the backwages. The directions be complied with within a period of four weeks from today.” Learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner also relied on another decision of this Court passed on 03.01.2023 in WPC (OAC ) No.199 of 2018. This Court placing reliance on the decision reported in 2022 (Suppl.) OLR 875 interfered with the order of punishment. View of this Court so taken in paragraph-6 is quoted hereunder. “6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after going through the materials available on record, this Court finds that the Petitioner was proceeded with the charges in the Departmental Proceeding initiated under Annexure-1 because of his implication in Colliery P.S. Case No.240 dated 19.09.2014 and so also in Colliery P.S. Case No.155 of 2014. While in Colliery P.S. Case NO.240 of 2014, the informant was one Ranjit Singh, in the other Criminal case i.e. Colliery P.S. Case No.155 of 2014, one Kusuma Devi was the informant. Prior to completion of the enquiry, the Petitioner faced the trial in both the cases before the learned S.D.J.M, Talcher in G.R. Case No.865 of 2014 and 537 of 2014. Since the prosecution could not prove the charges against the Petitioner, the Petitioner was acquitted of all the charges and was set at liberty vide judgment dated Since the 03.06.2015 under Annexure-10 series. informant in both the cases are the P.W.2 & 3 in Disciplinary Proceeding, their statement should not have been believed in view of the fact that the competent Criminal Court did not believe their statements taken on oath. Not only that since the Petitioner was proceeded in the Disciplinary proceeding because of his implication in the criminal case, in view of his acquittal in both the // 4 // cases, placing reliance of the decision of this Court as cited supra, no order of punishment should have been imposed against the Petitioner. Therefore, this Court is of the view that the order of punishment has been passed in violation of the ratio decided by this Court relying on the view of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of G.M Tank Vs. State of Gujarat as well as Captain M. Paul Anthony Vs. Bharat Gold Mines Ltd.” 5. Learned Addl. Govt. Advocate on the other hand contended that taking into account the nature of allegation made against the Petitioner which amounts top moral turpitude, the Petitioner is not eligible and entitled to get the benefit of acquittal . It is accordingly contended that the order of punishment passed against the Petitioner does not require any interference of this Court. 6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after going through the materials available on record, this Court finds that the proceeding against the petitioner under Annexure-1 series was initiated because of his involvement in Bolangir Town P.S. Case No.03 dt.05.01.2010. Placing reliance on the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Ramlal as well as the decision of this Court in the case of Sujit Kumar Behera passed in WP(C) No.199 of 2018, this Court is inclined to interfere with the order passed by the appellate authority- Opp. Party No.3 vide order dt.28.09.2014 under Annexure-10 for the present. 6.1. While interfering the order passed by Opp. Party No.3 under Annexure-10, this Court is inclined to quash the said order and remit the matter to Opp. Party No.3 to decide the appeal afresh in accordance with law. // 5 // 6.2. It is however observed that while re-deciding the appeal, as directed relevancy and effect of the judgment passed by the Apex Court in the case of Ramlal and by this Court in the case of Sujit Kumar Behera as cited supra be taken into consideration in its proper perspective. Opp. Party No.3 is directed to dispose of the appeal within a period of four (4) months form the date of receipt of this order. The Writ Petition is accordingly allowed and disposed of. sangita (Biraja Prasanna Satapathy) Judge Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: SANGITA PATRA Reason: authentication of order Location: orissa high court cuttack Date: 20-Nov-2024 12:06:20