. IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK WP(C) No. 12541 of 2015 Kartikeswar Dash ..... Petitioner Mr. S. Mishra, Advocate -versus- MD, OFDC Ltd. & Ors. ..... Opposite Parties Mr. B.K. Sharma, Sr. Advocate along with Mr. R. Sahoo, Advocate (Opp. Party No. 1) CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY ORDER 24.07.2026 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 therefore prayed that this hon'ble Court may graciously be pleased to admit the case, issue notice to the Opp. Parties and after hearing the case may quash the order of the disciplinary authority vide order No.13 dtd.20.1.2015 Under Annexure-6 as well as the order of the appellate authority vide Order No.28 dtd.11.6.2015 under Annexure-7 and further be pleased to direct that no recovery should be made from the petitioner and his period of suspension from 4.7.2012 to 28.10.2012 may be treated as duty with all consequential service benefits in the interest of justice. Any other order(s)/ direction(s) as deem fit and proper; . And for which act of kindness the Petitioner shall as in duty bound ever pray.” 4. It is contended that in the proceeding initiated against the Petitioner under Annexure-1 dtd.06.07.2012, Petitioner faced 4 nos. of charges, which reads as follows:- “ Sri Kartikeswar Das, Field Assistant of M Rampur Sub- Division has committed serious dereliction in duty and gross misconduct. Hence he is charged with: 1. Serious dereliction in duty causing heavy loss to OFDC Property 2. Un-authorized absence from headquarters from 03.05.12 to 01.07.2012. 3. Sustained heavy loss to the tune of Rs.3,60,363/- for 14.5775 cum of timber and 39 stacks = 487.50 Qntls of firewood. 4 Gross misconduct.” 4.1. Learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner contended that in the proceeding in question after completion of the enquiry, the enquiry report was submitted under Annexure-2. 4.2. With regard to the charge regarding loss sustained to the tune of Rs.3,60,363/- vide Sl. No. 3, the enquiry officer in his report, observed as follows:- “3. Sustained heavy loss to the tune of 3, 60,363 for 14.5775cum timber and 39 stacks =487.50 Qntls of fire wood. Sri Kartikeswar Das, field Assistant did not drag the timbers to the loading point from stump site after passing. He . also did not take up proper fire protection measures in pargabaju SWCV coupe. He remained unenthused absent from his duty for which 14.5775cum timber and 39 stacks- 487.50Qutis of firewood were burnt in fire hazard in the coupe. But the total responsibility cannot be on levied Sri Das alone. It cannot defied that the corporation sustained heavy loss. But the responsibility of the supervising officers cannot be overlooked. Had the supervising officer more vigilant for protection of corporation property instead of only issuing instructions, the corporation would not have sustained loss. Hence the responsibility of Sri Kartikeswar Das field Assistant for the loss to the tune of 3,60,363/ is partially proved.” 4.3. It is contended that on the face of such finding of the enquiry officer so far as charge No. 3 is concerned, the disciplinary authority could not have imposed with the punishment so imposed vide order dtd.20.01.2015 under Annexure-6. 4.4. Since the enquiry officer did not find the Petitioner liable for the loss to the tune of Rs.3,60,363/- in full, the disciplinary authority could not have imposed on the Petitioner to pay a sum of Rs.3,01,866/- from out of the total loss of Rs.3,60,363/- along with the other punishments. 4.5. It is however contended that the appellate authority on being moved while disposing the appeal vide order dtd.11.06.2015, though modified the order of punishments, but did not interfere with the recovery saddled on the Petitioner to the tune of Rs.3,01,866/-. ORDERS . “1) Recovery of Rs.3,01,866/- towards shortage of timber and firewood to the tune of 14.5775 Cum of timber and 487.50 qntls. of firewood in Pongabaju-SWC'V' timber coupe of 2011-12 is confirmed as per the order of the Disciplinary Authority. 2) One annual increment is stopped without cumulative effect. 3) The period of suspension is treated as such. 4) The period from 03.05.2012 to 31.05.2012 is treated as duties. 5)He is censured.” 4.6. Learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner contended that since the allegation with regard to loss caused to the Corporation was not fully proved during enquiry, the direction to recover a sum of Rs.3,01,866/- from the Petitioner towards such loss is not sustainable in the eye of law. It is accordingly contended that taking into account the nature of the enquiry report, imposition of punishment for recovery of a sum of Rs.3,01,866/- from the Petitioner requires interference of this Court. 5. Mr. B.K. Sharma, learned Sr. Counsel appearing for the Corporation on the other hand placing reliance on the provisions contained under the OFDC Service Rule, more particularly Rule 125 of the Rules, contended that since Petitioner was imposed with minor penalties, Rule 125 governs the field. Rule 125 of the Rules reads as follows:- “Rule 125 - Procedure for imposing minor penalty: 1. No order imposing any of the minor penalties specified in Clauses (i) to (vi) of Rule-121 shall be imposed except after . a) The employee/workman is informed in writing of the proposal to take action against him and of the allegation on which it is proposed to be taken and given an opportunity to make any representation he may wish to make within a time limit as may be specified: b) Such representation, if any, is taken into consideration by the disciplinary authority. 2. The record of proceedings in such cases shall include:- i) a copy of the intimation to the employee/workman of the proposal to take action against him; ii) a copy of the statement of allegation communicated to him; iii) his representation, if any, and iv) the orders on the case together with the reasons thereof. NOTE: 1. No oral enquiry is necessary where the punishment proposed is a minor one. 2. Where two or more employees/workman are concerned in any case, the authority empowered to impose the penalty on all such employees/workmen may make an order directing that the disciplinary action against all of them may be taken in any common proceeding." 5.1. It is also contended that against the order passed by the disciplinary authority, the appellate authority when was moved by the Petitioner, the appellate authority has given substantial relief to the Petitioner by converting the stoppage of one increment with cumulative effect to without cumulative effect and the period from 03.05.2012 to 31.05.2012 was treated as duty. Page 6 of 10 . 5.2. It is also contended that since minor penalty was imposed on the Petitioner, there was no requirement to rely on the finding of the Enquiry Officer. 5.3. Making all these submissions, learned Sr. Counsel appearing for the Corporation contended that Petitioner is not eligible and entitled to get any further relief after disposal of the appeal by the appellate authority. 6. To the submission made by the learned Sr. Counsel appearing for the Corporation, learned counsel for the Petitioner relying on a decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Punjab National Bank & Ors. vs. Kunj Behari Misra reported in AIR 1998 SC 2713, contended that even in case of minor punishment, the disciplinary authority has to defer with the finding of the enquiry officer by giving sufficient reason. Hon’ble Apex Court in para 17, 18 & 19 of the said decision has held as follows:- “17. These observations are clearly in tune with the observations in Bimal Kumar Pandit case [AIR 1963 SC 1612 : (1964) 2 SCR 1 : (1963) 1 LLJ 295] quoted earlier and would be applicable at the first stage itself. The aforesaid passages clearly bring out the necessity of the authority which is to finally record an adverse finding to give a hearing to the delinquent officer. If the enquiry officer had given an adverse finding, as per Karunakar case [(1993) 4 SCC 727 : 1993 SCC (L&S) 1184 : (1993) 25 ATC 704] the first stage required an opportunity to be given to the employee to represent to the disciplinary authority, even when an earlier opportunity had been granted to them by the enquiry officer. It will not stand to reason that when the finding in favour of the delinquent officers is proposed to be overturned by the disciplinary authority then no . opportunity should be granted. The first stage of the enquiry is not completed till the disciplinary authority has recorded its findings. The principles of natural justice would demand that the authority which proposes to decide against the delinquent officer must give him a hearing. When the enquiring officer holds the charges to be proved, then that report has to be given to the delinquent officer who can make a representation before the disciplinary authority takes further action which may be prejudicial to the delinquent officer. When, like in the present case, the enquiry report is in favour of the delinquent officer but the disciplinary authority proposes to differ with such conclusions, then that authority which is deciding against the delinquent officer must give him an opportunity of being heard for otherwise he would be condemned unheard. In departmental proceedings, what is of ultimate importance is the finding of the disciplinary authority. 18. Under Regulation 6, the enquiry proceedings can be conducted either by an enquiry officer or by the disciplinary authority itself. When the enquiry is conducted by the enquiry officer, his report is not final or conclusive and the disciplinary proceedings do not stand concluded. The disciplinary proceedings stand concluded with the decision of the disciplinary authority. It is the disciplinary authority which can impose the penalty and not the enquiry officer. Where the disciplinary authority itself holds an enquiry, an opportunity of hearing has to be granted by him. When the disciplinary authority differs with the view of the enquiry officer and proposes to come to a different conclusion, there is no reason as to why an opportunity of hearing should not be granted. It will be most unfair and iniquitous that where the charged officers succeed before the enquiry officer, they are deprived of representing to the disciplinary authority before that authority differs with the enquiry officer's report and, while recording a finding of guilt, imposes punishment on the officer. In our opinion, in any such situation, the charged officer must have an . opportunity to represent before the disciplinary authority before final findings on the charges are recorded and punishment imposed. This is required to be done as a part of the first stage of enquiry as explained in Karunakar case [(1993) 4 SCC 727 : 1993 SCC (L&S) 1184 : (1993) 25 ATC 704] . 19. The result of the aforesaid discussion would be that the principles of natural justice have to be read into Regulation 7(2). As a result thereof, whenever the disciplinary authority disagrees with the enquiry authority on any article of charge, then before it records its own findings on such charge, it must record its tentative reasons for such disagreement and give to the delinquent officer an opportunity to represent before it records its findings. The report of the enquiry officer containing its findings will have to be conveyed and the delinquent officer will have an opportunity to persuade the disciplinary authority to accept the favourable conclusion of the enquiry officer. The principles of natural justice, as we have already observed, require the authority which has to take a final decision and can impose a penalty, to give an opportunity to the officer charged of misconduct to file a representation before the disciplinary authority records its findings on the charges framed against the officer.” 6.1. It is accordingly contended that the impugned order passed by the appellate authority needs interference of this Court, more particularly the punishment of recovery to be made from the Petitioner to the tune of Rs.3,01,866/-. It is also contended that such an amount has been recovered from the retiral benefits of the Petitioner and be refunded back with interest. 7. Having heard learned counsel appearing for the Parties and considering the submissions made, this Court finds that in the proceeding initiated against the Petitioner vide memorandum . dtd.06.07.2012 under Annexure-1, Petitioner faced the proceeding with 4 nos. of charges and out of the said charges, Charge No. 3 relates to loss caused to the Corporation to the tune of Rs.3,60,363/-. 7.1. However, as found from the enquiry report so available under Annexure-2, the enquiry officer did not find the Petitioner guilty for such loss in full. However, on the face of such finding of the enquiry officer and without deferring with the same, the disciplinary authority while imposing various punishments, held the Petitioner liable to pay a sum of Rs.3,01,866/-. Such punishment has been confirmed by the appellate authority vide order under Annexure-7. But the other punishments imposed by the disciplinary authority so modified by the appellate authority, Petitioner is not aggrieved with the same. 7.2. Considering the materials available on record and finding of the enquiry officer, this Court is of the view that Petitioner could not have been held liable to pay a sum of Rs.3,01,866/- for the loss caused to the Corporation. Therefore, this Court taking into account the finding of the Enquiry Officer so available under Annexure-2, so far as Charge No. 3 is concerned, is of the view that Petitioner should have been held liable to pay 50% of the total loss. Accordingly, this Court while interfering with the appellate authority’s order under Annexure- 7, so far as recovery is concerned, held the Petitioner liable to pay a sum of Rs.1,50,000/- in place of Rs.3,01,866/-. 7.3. In view of the aforesaid view, this Court directs the Opp. Party- Corporation to refund the balance recovered amount from the Petitioner and the same be refunded within a period of six (6) weeks from the date of receipt of this order. Failure to get the refund within Page 10 of 10. the aforesaid time period will entitle the Petitioner to claim for payment of interest @ 6% per annum on the balance amount for the period exceeding the period of 6 (six) weeks till the amount is refunded. 8. The writ petition accordingly stands disposed of. (BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY) Judge Sneha