The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C) (OA) No.1462 of 2017 Dr. Ram Gopal Agrawalla …. Petitioner Mr. S.P. Pati, Advocate State of Odisha and Others -versus- …. Opposite Parties Mr. S. Jena, AGA CORAM: JUSTICE BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY ORDER 02.02.2024 Order No. 02. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual/Physical) Mode. 2. Heard learned counsel for the Petitioner and learned State Counsel for the Opposite Parties. 3. The Petitioner has filed the present Writ Petition inter alia with the following prayer: - “i) The Hon’ble Tribunal may be pleased to quash the disciplinary proceeding under Annexure-1 and the order of punishment under Annexure-12, and ii) The Hon’ble Tribunal be further pleased to pass such other order/ orders as deemed fit and proper”. 4. It is contended that the Petitioner while continuing as a DSMO, Jharsuguda, a proceeding was initiated against him vide Memorandum dtd.18.06.2014 under Annexure-1. Petitioner on receipt of the Memorandum not only submitted his written statement of defence, but also // 2 // participated in the enquiry. But the enquiry officer without providing opportunity of hearing to the Petitioner to cross-examine the prosecution witnesses and without providing copies of the documents so exhibited and relied on by the Enquiry Officer, while submitting the report by holding the Petitioner guilty of the charges on 29.11.2014 under Annexure-6, Petitioner was issued with the 1st show cause vide notice dtd.19.12.2014 under Annexure-5. Petitioner while submitting his reply to the 1st show cause under Annexure-7 clearly indicated about non-compliance of the principle of natural justice by the Enquiry Officer and the illegalities committed by the Enquiry Officer in conducting the enquiry. 4.1. It is contended that without considering the stand taken by the Petitioner in his reply to the 1st show cause, Opposite Party No.1 when issued the 2nd show cause on 27.04.2015 under Annexure-8, Petitioner once again reiterated the same stand with regard to the non- compliance of the principle of natural justice by the Enquiry Officer and examination of witnesses who are not named in the Memorandum. Petitioner also took a stand that without providing opportunity of hearing to the Petitioner to cross-examine the witnesses, Enquiry Officer held the Petitioner guilty of the charges. Even though such a stand was repeatedly taken by the Petitioner in his reply to the 1st and 2nd show cause, but Opposite Party Page 2 of 6 // 3 // No.1 without considering the said stand of the Petitioner in its proper perspective, passed the impugned order of punishment on 30.06.2017 under Annexure-12. Vide the said order the following punishments were imposed against the Petitioner: “I. Withholding of two annual increments with cumulative effect. II. Withholding of promotion for a period of 3 years. III. The period of unauthorized absence for the period from 02.05.2012 to 03.05.2013 may be treated as EOL without any service benefits”. 4.2. Learned counsel for the Petitioner contended that since the Petitioner was not given due opportunity of hearing by the Enquiry Officer and various documents were exhibited without providing copies of the same and witnesses were examined without giving opportunity to cross-examine them, the said stand taken by the Petitioner in his reply to 1st and 2nd show cause should have been considered by Opposite Party No.1 prior to imposing the order of punishment vide order under Annexure-12. Since Opposite Party No.1 without considering all those stand which was repeatedly taken by the Petitioner, disposed of the matter with passing of the impugned order, the said order is not sustainable in the eye of law and it requires interference of this Court. 5. Learned Addl. Government Advocate for the State on the other hand made his submissions basing on the stand taken in the counter affidavit. Page 3 of 6 // 4 // Learned Addl. Government Advocate for the State contended that after initiation of the proceeding against the Petitioner under Annexure-1, since the provisions contained under Rule-15 of OCS (CC&A) Rules, 1962 was scrupulously followed and the Petitioner was given due opportunity of hearing at every stage of the proceeding, no illegality or irregularity can be found with the order impugned. It is accordingly contended that Petitioner has been rightly punished and it requires no interference. 6. Having heard learned counsel for the Parties and after going through the materials available on record, this Court finds that after receipt of the enquiry report along with the 1st show cause under Annexures-5 & 6, Petitioner while submitting his reply to the 1st show cause under Annexure-7, specifically indicated the illegalities committed by the Enquiry Officer in course of enquiry and the non-compliance of the principle of natural justice. It is found that without considering the stand taken by the Petitioner in his reply to the 1st show cause, 2nd show cause was issued vide Annexure-8. Petitioner once again took similar stand while giving his reply under Annexure-9. As found from the record, Opposite Party No.1 while disposing the proceeding with imposition of the punishment has not at all dealt with the stand so taken by the Petitioner in his reply to the 1st and 2nd show cause. Page 4 of 6 // 5 // 6.1. Since it is found from the record that the stand repeatedly taken by the Petitioner with regard to the illegalities committed by the Enquiry Officer in course of the enquiry and submission of the enquiry report without giving due opportunity of hearing to the Petitioner, Opposite Party No.1 has not at all dealt with the same, this Court on that ground is of the view that the impugned order passed against the Petitioner under Annexure-12 is not sustainable in the eye of law. Therefore, this Court is inclined to quash the order dtd.30.06.2017 so passed by Opposite Party No.1 under Annexure-12. While quashing the same and taking into account the stand taken by the Petitioner regarding illegalities committed by the Enquiry Officer, this Court deem it fit and proper to relegate the matter to the stage of enquiry. Accordingly, this Court while disposing the writ petition with quashing of the order dtd.30.06.2017 under Annexure-12 directs Opposite Party No.1 to restart the proceeding from the stage of enquiry by appointing a fresh Enquiry Officer. Since the proceeding is of the year
Legal Reasoning
2014 and it is contended that the Petitioner has retired in the meantime, Opposite Party No.1 is directed to conclude the proceeding from the stage of enquiry in accordance with law within a period of six (6) months from the date of receipt of this order. Petitioner is directed to cooperate Page 5 of 6 // 6 // for early disposal of the proceeding and he will not pray for time at any stage of the proceeding.
Decision
7. Accordingly, the Writ Petition stands disposed of. (Biraja Prasanna Satapathy) Judge Subrat Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: SUBRAT KUMAR BARIK Reason: Authentication Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACK Date: 05-Feb-2024 13:10:41 Page 6 of 6