IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C ) No.6141 of 2006 Prasanta Kumar Mishra …. Petitioner Mr. A.K. Mishra, Adv. -versus- Orissa Small Industries Corporation Ltd & Another …. Opp. Parties. Mr. R. Sahu, Adv. (for O.P. Nos.1 & 2) COROM: THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY Order No ORDER 29.06.2026 10. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Mode. 2. Heard learned counsel appearing for the parties. 3. The present Writ Petition has been filed inter alia with the following prayer: Under the facts and circumstances it is humbly prayed that the Hon'ble court may be pleased to issue a writ in the nature of writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, writs in quashing the order of punishment as has been imposed by the OP No.1 in Annexure-18 and further be pleased to communicated to the petitioner in Annexure-21 and further the office orders quash the order of the appellate authority as passed by the OP No.1 in Annexure-22 be quashed and further to direct the Ops to pay the petitioner all his arrear financial dues with interest, And to allow the writ petition, And for this act of kindness, the Petitioner as in duty bound shall ever pray. p. 2 p. 2 4. It is contended that in the proceeding initiated against the Petitioner vide charge memo dt.18.02.2002 under Annexure-5, Petitioner on the face of repeated application was never provided with the documents enabling him to file his reply to the charges. However, Petitioner seeking his right to file a detailed reply, when filed an interim reply under Annexure-9, the Disciplinary Authority-Opp. Party No.1 appointed the Inquiry Officer to conduct the inquiry vide order dt.09.07.2002 under Annexure-11. 4.1. Learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner contended that taking into account the seriousness and gravity of the charges, the Inquiry Officer after being appointed vide order dt.09.07.2002, without causing proper enquiry, simply held the Petitioner guilty of the charges in his inquiry report dtd.03.10.2002 so available under Annexure-12. It is also contended that after receipt of the inquiry report, Petitioner instead of being issued with the show cause to make his representation against the findings of the Enquiry Officer, was issued with the notice dt.05.07.2003 under Annexure- 12, by holding the Petitioner guilty of the charges. 4.2. It is further contended that even though Petitioner filed his reply to the notice vide Annexure-13, but the proceeding was disposed of by Opp. Party No.1 vide order dt.01.06.2004 under Annexure-18, wherein Petitioner was imposed with the punishment for recovery of an amount of Rs.33,93,333.99. 4.3. It is contended that challenging such order of punishment, Petitioner moved the appellate authority-Opp. Party No.2 under Annexure-19. The appellate authority p. 3 p. 3 though vide order dt.03.02.2006 under Annexure-21, reduced the amount to be recovered to Rs.11,31,111.33., but it is contended that since the inquiry was not conducted in accordance with law as per the service Rule framed by the Corporation, no such order of punishment could have been imposed on the Petitioner so passed vide order under Annexur-18 and further order passed by the appellate authority under Annexure-21. 4.4. It is vehemently contended that since no document was exhibited nor any witness was examined in support of the charges and the inquiry was conducted in a single day with submission of the report on 03.10.2002, basing on such an inquiry report, Petitioner could not have been held guilty of the charges with imposition of the punishment vide order under Annexure-18, further confirmed vide order under Annexure-21, but with a lesser liability. It is accordingly contended that the matter be remitted to the disciplinary authority, Opp. Party No.1 for fresh inquiry and disposal of the proceeding in accordance with law. It is further contended that since Petitioner has retired w.e.f 28.02.2002 and the proceeding is of the year 2002, the proceeding be disposed of within a reasonable time period. It is however fairly contended that no recovery has been made, even though there is no interim order passed by this Court. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the Corporation on the other hand while supporting the impugned order, contended that since in the proceeding, the inquiry Officer after taking up the inquiry, held the Petitioner guilty of the charges, the Corporation by following due procedure of law, disposed of p. 4 p. 4 the proceeding vide order dt.01.06.2004 under Annexure-18. Challenging such order, Petitioner when moved the appellate authority-Opp. Party No.2 , the appellate authority on being satisfied with the ground of appeal, reduced the recovery amount from Rs.33,93,333.99 to Rs.11,,31,111.33. It is contended that since the appellate authority after due consideration of the grounds of appeal has reduced the recoverable amount on the Petitioner, no interference is called for. It is also fairly contended that no recovery has yet been made after disposal of the appeal. 6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and considering the submission made, this Court finds that Petitioner while in service, the Proceeding was initiated vide charge memo dt.18.02.2002 with the following charges: The following charges are formed against your: That the total outstanding dues including principal and interest against M/s. Binayak Plastic (P) Ltd., I/E, Mancheswar, Bhubaneswar as on 20.5.1998 was Rs.36,12,623.57. but without verifying the facts and figures as DGM (Marketing), you have allowed disbursement of advance to the above unit in excess of the limit of Rs.15.00 lakhs, sanctioned by MD, as detailed in Annexure-I on various occasions. This has brought the outstanding towards principal and interest. The bills pending for collection were only Rs. 27,80,223.03 as on 25.8.2001, thereby making the overall excess drawal of the unit to the tune of Rs.33,93,333.99 (No.76,73,557.02.27,80,223.03) as against the sanctioned limit of Rs.15.00 lakhs in violation of the approved scheme of marketing assistance to the unit. p. 5 p. 5 As per the accepted marketing assistance scheme the total dues are to be limited to Rs.15.00 lakhs, including As per the accepted marketing assistance scheme the interest at any given instances. The advance is to be backed ৮ bills collectable in favour of OSIC. From the statement at Annexure-I, it is seen that you have wrongly recommended for payment to be released in kind/ca to the unit thereby giving undue benefits to the unit and putting the Corporation to loss. The above action on your part constitutes gross misconduct as per the OSIC Employees Service Rule, 1979 by which you are governed. Therefore you are charged with gross negligence in duty, dishonesty in connection with business of the Corporation and acting in a manner prejudicial to the interest of the Corporation under Rule-48(2) 1, 5, 9 of the OSIC Employees Service Rule, 1979. Your written statement of defence, if any, on the matter should reach the undersigned within 7 days of receipt this charge memo failing which it shall be presumed that you have no explanation to offer and the matter will be decided on its merit as per rule. 6.1. It is found from the record that in consideration of the application made by the Petitioner to provide him the documents, Petitioner though was allowed to inspect the documents and take copies of the same vide letter dt.23.04.2002 under Annexure-10, but Petitioner prior to availing the opportunity, had already filed an interim Written statement of defence on 23.02.2002 under Annexure-9. 6.2. After receipt of the interim written statement of defence, Opp. Party No.1 being the Disciplinary Authority, vide his p. 6 p. 6 order dt.09.07.2002 under Annexure-11, appointed the Inquiry Officer. As found, the Inquiry Officer without conducting the inquiry in accordance with law and in absence of examination of any witness in support of the charges and in absence of proving the charges with due production of the documents by the prosecution, the charges being serious in nature, submitted the inquiry report on 03.10.2002 so enclosed to Annexure-12, by holding the Petitioner guilty of the charges. 6.3. Basing on such report of the Inquiry Officer and without following the provision of law, Opp. party No.1 while disposing the proceeding vide order dt.01.06.2004 under Annexure-18, held the Petitioner liable to pay a sum of Rs.33,93.333.99. Petitioner when preferred an appeal before Opp. party No.2, the appellate authority while disposing the appeal reduced the liability of the Petitioner to Rs.11,31,111.33 vide order dt.03.02.2006 under Annexure- 21. 6.4. This Court taking into account the seriousness of the charges and the fact that the Petitioner prior to being communicated with letter dt.23.04.2002 under Annexure-10 had already submitted an interim written statement of defence on 23.02.2022 under Annexure-9, and the Inquiry Officer without conducting the inquiry in accordance with law held the Petitioner guilty of the charge in his report dt.03.10.2002 under Annexure-12, is of the view that basing on such inquiry report, Petitioner could not have been imposed with the punishment vide order under Annexure- 18, so modified vide order under Annexure-21. p. 7 p. 7 6.5. Since prior to being communicated with letter dt.23.04.2002 under Annexure-10, Petitioner had already filed an interim written statement of defence on 23.02.2002 under Annexure-9, this Court while disposing the proceeding with quashing of the order under Annexure-18 as well as Annexure-21, directs Opp. party No.1 to provide the documents so required to the Petitioner within a period of four (4) weeks from the date of receipt of this order. On being provided with the documents, Petitioner be permitted to file a fresh written statement of defence within a period of 4 (four) weeks thereafter. On receipt of the Written statement of defence, Opp. party No.1 shall appoint a fresh inquiry Officer and conclude the proceeding in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of 6(six) months from the date of receipt of the written statement of defence. 6.6. Petitioner is however directed to cooperate for disposal of the proceeding within the aforesaid time period. However, if no written statement of defence after being provided with the documents will be filed within the time stipulated by this Court, Opp. party No.1 shall be free to proceed with the proceeding and dispose of the same in accordance with law. 7. The Writ Petition accordingly stands disposed of. (Biraja Prasanna Satapathy) Judge sangita