The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK WP(C) No. 26709 of 2024 Hrushikesh Kandi ..... State of Odisha & Ors. -versus- ..... CORAM: Petitioner Mr. S. Mohapatra, Advocate
Legal Reasoning
Opposite Parties Mr. B. Panigrahi, ASC THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY
Decision
ORDER 30.10.2024 Order No. 03 1. This matter is taken up through hybrid mode. 2. Heard Mr. S. Mohapatra, learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner and Mr. B. Panigrahi, learned Addl. Standing Counsel appearing for the Opp. Parties. 3. This writ petition has been filed inter alia with the following prayer:- “It is therefore humbly prayed that this Hon'ble Court may graciously be pleased to admit this writ petition and issue rule nisi calling upon the Opposite Parties to show cause as to: A. Why the Memorandum of Charge dated 06.02.2020 vide Annexure 1 (Series) shall not be quashed, being illegal, arbitrary and contrary to settled principles of law; B. Why such other order/orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper shall not be passed; If the Opposite Parties fail to show cause or show insufficient cause, the Hon'ble Court may be pleased to make the rule absolute in granting the reliefs prayed for in the facts and circumstances of the case; Page 1 of 4. And/or pass any other order/orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the interest of justice; And for this act of kindness the Petitioner as in duty bound shall ever pray.” 4. Learned counsel for the Petitioner contended that Petitioner is facing the disciplinary proceeding on self-same charges as like the vigilance proceeding. During pendency of the vigilance proceeding when the Departmental Proceeding was initiated, Petitioner approached this Court challenging initiation of the disciplinary proceeding. This Court vide order dtd.15.05.2020 under Annexure- 5 passed the following order:- “Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Additional Government Advocate for the State. For the disciplinary proceeding and the criminal proceeding based on selfsame issue and the trial of the criminal proceeding having not commenced, the petitioner cannot be forced to file his defence in the disciplinary proceeding. It is in the circumstances, this Court stays the disciplinary proceeding involving the petitioner for a period: of six months within which period the trial involving the criminal proceeding shall be concluded. The petitioner undertakes to cooperate with the trial involving the criminal proceeding. Writ petition is accordingly disposed of.” 4. It is contended that on the face of such order passed by this Court, no further progress has been made to the vigilance proceeding and as on date as found from Annexure-8 final form has not yet been submitted. It is contended that even though the vigilance proceeding has not proceeded further on the face of the order passed by this Court under Annexure-5, but Petitioner has now been noticed to take part in the disciplinary proceeding vide notice dtd.06.09.2024 under nnexure-7. Page 2 of 4. 4.1. It is contended that since both the proceedings are on self-same charges, Petitioner will be seriously prejudiced if he will take part in the departmental proceeding and give his evidence by filing the written statement of defence. It is accordingly contended that continuance of disciplinary proceeding be stayed till disposal of the vigilance proceeding. 4.3. In support of the aforesaid submission, learned counsel for the Petitioner relied on a Judgment of the Hon’ble Apex court in the case of Capt. M. Paul Anthony Vs. Bharat Gold Mines Ltd. & Anr. reported in (1999) 3 SCC 679. Hon’ble Apex Court in Para 22 of the Judgement has held as follows:- “22. The conclusions which are deducible from various decisions of this Court referred to above are: (i) Departmental proceedings and proceedings in a criminal case can proceed simultaneously as there is no bar in their being conducted simultaneously, though separately. (ii) If the departmental proceedings and the criminal case are based on identical and similar set of facts and the charge in the criminal case against the delinquent employee is of a grave nature which involves complicated questions of law and fact, it would be desirable to stay the departmental proceedings till the conclusion of the criminal case. (iii) Whether the nature of a charge in a criminal case is grave and whether complicated questions of fact and law are involved in that case, will depend upon the nature of offence, the nature of the case launched against the employee on the basis of evidence and material collected against him during investigation or as reflected in the charge-sheet. (iv) The factors mentioned at (ii) and (iii) above cannot be considered in isolation to stay the departmental proceedings but due regard has to be given to the fact that the departmental proceedings cannot be unduly delayed. (v) If the criminal case does not proceed or its disposal is being unduly delayed, the departmental proceedings, even if they were stayed on account of the pendency of the criminal case, can be resumed and proceeded with so as to conclude them at an early date, so that if the employee is found not guilty his honour may be vindicated and in case he is found guilty, the administration may get rid of him at the earliest.” Page 3 of 4. 5. Mr. B. Panigrahi, learned Addl. Standing Counsel on the other hand contended that after passing of the order under Annexure-5, it is the duty of the Petitioner to take step for disposal of the vigilance proceeding. Since the vigilance proceeding is not proceeding further, it is not a ground to stay the disciplinary proceeding. 6. Having heard learned counsel appearing for the Parties and considering the submissions made, it is found that Petitioner is facing disciplinary proceeding as well as the vigilance proceeding and charges in both the proceedings are same and on earlier occasion when Petitioner challenging continuance of the disciplinary proceeding, approached this Court in W.P.(C) No. 10981 of 2020, this Court while staying the disciplinary proceeding for a period of six (6) months directed for disposal of the Criminal Proceeding within that period. But as found from Annexure-8, final form has not yet been submitted in the vigilance proceeding. In view of that position and the earlier order passed by this Court under Annexure-5, this Court while disposing the writ petition observes that the disciplinary proceeding may proceed, but no final order be passed, till disposal of the vigilance proceeding in V.G.R. No. 27/2019. It is open for the State to take appropriate step for disposal of the vigilance proceeding as expeditiously as possible with submission of the final form. 7. The writ petition is disposed of accordingly. Issue urgent certified copy of the order as per Rules. Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Sneha Signed by: SNEHANJALI PARIDA Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Date: 30-Oct-2024 15:19:19 (BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY) Judge Page 4 of 4.