Page 1 of 5. IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK WP(C) No.2299 of 2008 Narayan Prasad Badu ..... Petitioner Mr. K.A. Guru, Advocate -versus- O.F.D.C., Bhubaneswar &Anr. ..... Opposite Parties Mr. B.K. Sharma, Sr. Advocate along with Mr. R. Sahoo, Advocate CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY ORDER 03.07.2026 Order No.13 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:- “It is most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may graciously be pleased to: AND a. ISSUE RULE NISI calling upon the Opposite Parties to show cause as to why an appropriate writ in nature of certiorari/mandamus and/or any other appropriate writ/writs or orders and/or direction should not be passed to quash the order passed under Annexure-7 and 10 and the consequence order passed their after under Annexure-11 & 12; AND b. If the OPPOSITE PARTIES fail to show cause or show inadequate or false cause, make the aforesaid rule nisi absolute and refund the amount deducted under Annexure 11 and Annexure- 12 from the retirement benefit. Page 2 of 5. And/or order/orders and the Hon'ble Court may deem just and proper and in order to provide the Petitioner complete relief. And for this act of kindness the Appellant shall as in duty bound ever pray.” 4. It is contended that in the proceeding initiated with issuance of a show-cause dtd.19.10.2000 under Annexure-1, Petitioner though filed his reply and participated in the enquiry, but basing on the enquiry report so submitted under Annexure-2, the disciplinary authority vide order dtd.31.08.2007 under Annexure-7 held the Petitioner liable to pay a sum of Rs.3,22,584/- for the alleged loss of 10,471 Salia Full Bundle. 4.1. It is contended that challenging such order of punishment imposed in shape of recovery of Rs.3,22,584/-, Petitioner when filed an appeal, the appellate authority though was inclined to reduce the recovery to the tune of 50%, but in the said order the appellate authority came to a conclusion that out of the aforesaid 10,471 of Salia Full Bundle, 9157 of Bundle was transmitted to Straw Products Ltd. in the name of the Depot, where the Petitioner was working at the relevant point of time vide letter dtd.11.07.1991 so available at Page 23 of Annexure-4. 4.2. It is contended that since the appellate authority did not dispute the transportation of 9157 of bundles to the aforesaid Straw Products Pvt. Ltd. in the name of the Petitioner’s Depot from out of the 10471 SFB, there was no occasion to reduce the recovery to 50% and it should have been in the alternate reduced proportionately, taking into account the loss caused to the tune of 1314 SFB. Since the appellate authority came to a conclusion that the loss caused to the Corporation is to the tune of 1314 bundles, on the face of such Page 3 of 5. finding Petitioner could not have been held liable to pay 50% of the amount so determined by the disciplinary authority while disposing the proceeding vide order dtd.31.08.2007 under Annexure-7. 4.3. It is further contended that taking into account the nature of order passed by the appellate authority, wherein Petitioner was held liable to pay a sum of Rs.1,61,282/-, the Corporation withheld the unutilized leave salary as due to, to the tune of Rs.57,110/- so reflected in Annexure-11 and so also the gratuity to the tune of Rs.1,02,139/- so reflected under Annnexure-12. 4.4. It is contended that since the appellate authority rightly came to a conclusion that 9157 bundle has been sent from the Petitioner’s Depot to the aforesaid Straw Production Pvt. Ltd., Petitioner along with the other employee should have been held liable towards loss of 1314 bundle instead of holding the Petitioner liable to the extent of 50%. 4.5. Making all these submissions, learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner contended that Opp. Party-Corporation be directed to recover 50% of the loss, taking into account the loss caused to the Corporation at 1314 bundle and pay back the residue amount, which has been illegally recovered from the unutilized leave salary and gratuity amount of the Petitioner. 5. Mr. B.K. Sharma, learned Sr. Counsel appearing for the Corporation on the other hand while supporting the impugned order so passed by the appellate authority, contended that since the appellate authority after being satisfied with the grounds taken in the appeal, reduced the recovery to the tune of 50% and saddled the same on both the employees who were involved in the alleged loss, Page 4 of 5. Petitioner is not eligible and entitled to get any further relief. It is also contended that because of the interim order, no recovery has been effected. 6. Having heard learned counsel appearing for the Parties and considering the submissions made, this Court finds that pursuant to the show-cause issued vide office order dtd.19.10.2000 under Annexure-1, Petitioner was held liable for loss of 10,471 of Salia Full Bundles. Even though Petitioner participated in the enquiry, but when the enquiry officer held the Petitioner guilty of the loss, the disciplinary authority after following due procedure of law, while disposing the matter vide order dtd.31.08.2007 under Annexure-7, directed the Petitioner to pay a sum of Rs.3,22,584/- towards loss of the aforesaid 10,471 of Bundles. 6.1. However, it is found that Petitioner when preferred an appeal, the appellate authority though came to a conclusion that out of the aforesaid 10, 471, 9157 of Bundles have been transmitted from the Petitioner’s Depot to Straw Products Private Ltd., so reflected in letter dt.11.07.1991 under Annexure-4, it is the view of this Court that on the face of such finding of the appellate authority regarding transportation of 9157 of Salia Full Bundles out of the alleged 10,471 of Bundles, the appellate authority should have held the Petitioner responsible proportionately to the loss caused to the Corporation instead of reducing the recovery by 50%. 6.2. Since the appellate authority came to a conclusion that out of the 10471 bundles, 9157 bundles have been sent to the Straw Products Pvt. Ltd., it is the view of this Court that Petitioner along with the other employee should have been held liable for the loss of 1314 bundles. Page 5 of 5. 6.3. It is also found that basing on the liability saddled on the Petitioner by the appellate authority at Rs.1,61,282/-, the Corporation has recovered a sum of Rs.57,110/- so due to the Petitioner towards unutilized leave salary and a sum of Rs.1,02,139/- so due to the Petitioner towards his gratuity under Annexure-11 & 12. 6.4. In view of the aforesaid analysis, this Court while disposing the writ petition, with quashing of both the orders issued on 31.08.2007 under Annexure-7 and so also order dtd.10.12.2007 under Annexure-10, directs Opp. Party No. 1 to recover the loss of 1334 bundles of bamboo proportionately from the present Petitioner and the other officer who is involved. By making such calculation and by recovering the amount as will be calculated, the residue amount so recovered from the retiral benefits of the Petitioner i.e. unutilized leave salary and gratuity under Annexure-11 & 12 be refunded to the Petitioner. This Court directs Opp. Party No. 1 to complete the entire exercise within a period of two (2) months from the date of receipt of this order. 7. The writ petition accordingly stands disposed of. (BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY) Judge Sneha