Page 1 of 9. IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK WP(C) No.9718 of 2021 Nayana Behera ..... Petitioner Mr. S. Patra, Advocate -versus- State of Odisha & Ors. ..... Opposite Parties Mr. P.K. Panda, ASC CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY ORDER 16.04.2026 Order No.08 1. This matter is taken up through hybrid mode. 2. Heard Mr. S. Patra, learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner and Mr. P.K. Panda, learned Addl. Standing Counsel appearing for the Opp. Parties. 3. The present writ petition has been filed inter alia with the following prayer:- “It is therefore, prayed that the Hon'ble Court be pleased to allow the Writ Petition and call for record and issue Rule NISI calling upon the Opp. Parties to show cause as to why the Memorandum dtd.19.10.2016 under Annexure-1, enquiry report dtd.22.07.2019 under Annexure-3, impugned punishment order dated 04.11.2017, rejection orders dated 19.12.2019 and 20.02.2021 at Annexure-8, Annexure-10 and Annexure-14 respectively be quashed and why the petitioner shall not be paid her financial and other consequential service benefits like promotions etc. and Opp. Parties fail to show cause or show insufficient cause, the said Rule be made absolute by issuing appropriate writ/writs. And pass such order/orders, direction/direction as may be deemed fit and proper in the circumstances of the case; Page 2 of 9. And for this act of kindness, the petitioner shall as in duty bound ever pray.” 4. It is contended that Petitioner while continuing as a Sub Inspector of Police and posted to Ghatagaon Police Station, the proceeding under Rule 15 of OCS (CCA) Rules, 1962 (in short Rules) was initiated against her vide Memorandum dtd.19.10.2016 under Annexure-1 with the following charges:- “SI Nayana Behera of Keonjhar District is charged with gross misconduct and on becoming of an officer entering into the trade and business, hence the following articles of charges are framed against her. 1. SI Nayana Behera joined Keonjhar District on 14.03.2014A.M. being relieved from Range Officer, WR. Rourkela on 05.03.2014P.M. vide D.D. No.733 dt.25.03.2014 and joined Champua PS. on 14.03.2014P.M. being relieved from R.O. Keonjhar vide DO. No.749 dt.25.03 2014 2. On the written of report of one Sri Chatrubhuja Akal on 18.07.2015, it is learn that, the family members of St Nayana Behera present at Ghatagaon P.S, namely Sri Pravat Ranjan Dutta (Husband), Sri Bishikesan Dutta (Father-in-law) and Sri Deepak Ranjan Dutta (Elder Brother in-law) are running rice business at Bhubaneswar since long. In the month of February 2016 they stopped payment of outstanding balance of Rs5,00,000/- as a result the reporter Chatrubhuja Akal also stopped supplying of rice in the month of February 2016 for which St Nayana Behera interfered into the matter using her position as St and personally met to the reporter Chatrubhuja Akal at Bhubaneswar and requested him for further supply of rice to her husband Sri Pravat Ranjan Dutta. Sri Bishikesan Dutta (Father-in-law) and Deepak Ranjan Dutta (Elder Brother-in-law). She assured to reporter Chatrubhuja Akal that, they will clear up outstanding balance in instalments. Page 3 of 9. However, as SI Nayana Behera was agree to clear up the outstanding balance and transferred cash of Rs.40,000/- from her Bank Account bearing No 20033539580 to Account No. 10977688615 in the name of TALASH GENERAL STORE on 21.05.2016 from SBI, Keonjhar. Further she was transferred Rs.40,000/- on 26.04.2016. Rs.10,000/ on 25.04.2016 and Rs.20,000/ on 30.05.2016 to Account No.1097768615 in the name of TALASH GENERAL STORE from Chimila Branch comes under Champua P.S, Keonjhar. Hence it is clear established that Si Nayana Behera is in relation with rice business remaining behind her husband, Father-In Law and Elder Brother-in-law. As such SI Nayana Behera involved directly/ indirectly with the rice business of her in laws members which violates the Rule-17 of Odisha Govt. Servant Conduct Rule-1959 and Police Manual Rule-708.” 4.1. Learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner contended that the proceeding was so initiated only on the ground that Petitioner made some payments towards the rice business run by her husband and in laws at Bhubaneswar. 4.2. It is contended that only because Petitioner made some payments towards the liability incurred by her husband while dealing with the business, the proceeding in question was initiated, with the charges that Petitioner since without prior permission is involved in the business, that amounts to violation of Rule 17 of the Odisha Govt. Servant Conduct Rules, 1959 r.w. PMR 828 (b), Appendix-49. 4.3. It is contended that since Petitioner has not committed any illegality or irregularity with regard to discharge of her duty as S.I. of Police and the charges so framed in the memorandum is with regard to the payments made by her towards the liability incurred Page 4 of 9. by her husband in his rice business, no proceeding could have been initiated with the charges so framed in the impugned proceeding dtd.19.10.2016 under Annexure-1 by Opp. Party No. 4. 4.4. It is contended that Petitioner in the said proceeding not only filed her written statement of defence under Annexure-2, but also participated in the enquiry by taking the stand that since Petitioner has not committed any wrong with regard to discharge of her duty as a Govt. servant, the proceeding with the charges made therein is not maintainable. However, without proper appreciation of the stand taken by the Petitioner in the written statement of defence, the enquiry officer while submitting the enquiry report under Annexure-3, held the Petitioner guilty of the charges. 4.5. It is contended that basing on such enquiry report submitted under Annexure-3 and by issuing the 1st & 2nd show-cause notice as provided under Rule 15 of the Rules, Petitioner was imposed with the punishment vide impugned order dtd.04.11.2017 of Opp. Party No. 4 under Annexure-8 with imposition of the punishment of forfeiture of increment for 12 months with cumulative effect carrying black mark value of 02 (two). 4.6. Petitioner though preferred an appeal under Annexure-9, but the appeal was also rejected by the appellate authority-Opp. Party No. 3 vide order dtd.19.12.2019 under Annexure-10. Not only that further appeal filed by the Petitioner before the D.G. of Police-Opp. Party No. 2 under Annexure-11 was also rejected vide order dtd.20.02.2021 under Annexure-14. 4.7. Learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner contended that since the very basis of the initiation of the proceeding with the Page 5 of 9. charges indicated under Annexure-1 does not relate to violation of any service condition by the Petitioner nor related to any of her service related work, no such proceeding could have been initiated in terms of the provisions contained under OCS (CCA) Rules, 1962 with regard to violation of Rule 17 of the Odisha Govt. Servant Conduct Rules, 1959 r.w. PMR 828 (b), Appendix-49. It is also contended that since Petitioner’s husband is doing rice business, for any liability, Petitioner if makes any payment from her own earning, it cannot be said that Petitioner is involved in the business. It is accordingly contended that not only the initiation of the proceeding is bad in the eye of law, but also the order of punishment passed under Annexure-8, further confirmed vide order under Annexure-11 and 14. 5. Mr. P.K. Panda, learned Addl. Standing Counsel on the other hand made his submission basing on the stand taken in the counter affidavit so filed by Opp. Party No. 4. It is contended that since the proceeding in question has been conducted strictly in terms of the provisions contained under the Rule and principle of natural justice was given all through and there is also no allegation regarding non- compliance of any of the provisions contained under Rule 15 of the Rules and so also violation of the principle of natural justice, no illegality or irregularity can be found with the impugned order. In support of such stand, reliance was placed to Para 10 & 11 of the counter affidavit, which reads as follows:- “10. That in reply to the averment made in paragraph No. 4 of the writ petition, it is humbly submitted that during course of enquiry, the Enquiry Officer examined all the PWs and exhibited all the Page 6 of 9. relevant documents as per memo of evidence. After the prosecution, the charged officer was asked to submit her list of defence witness (if any) by several times on dated- 25.04.2017, 20.05.2017 and 15.06.2017 respectively. Accordingly the petitioner submitted her written defence, which was found to be fabricated by the Enquiry Officer. After observing all the legal formalities, the Enquiry Officer submitted her findings holding the charged officer guilty of the charges levelled against her. Copy of order of Enquiry Officer dated 22.7.2017 and other relevant documents are enclosed herewith and marked as ANNEXURE-B/4 series. 11. That the averment made in paragraph No. 5 of the writ petition are disputed and denied. It is humbly submitted that after submission of findings, S.P., Keonjhar went through all the contents of the proceeding file and scrutinized all the documents. After careful analysis, the then S.P was pleased to pass order that the Enquiry Officer has conducted the enquiry in a free and fair manner and due opportunity has been given to the charged officer. Hence basing on the findings of the Enquiry Officer and in accordance with the OGSCR 1959, the competent authority issued the 1st show cause notice to the charged SI (Petitioner) which was served on her on Dt. 03.08.2017 with a direction to submit her explanation against the findings of the Enquiry Officer. Accordingly she submitted her explanation praying for sympathetic consideration and exoneration from the charges levelled against her. As the competent authority was not in a view for exoneration, the 2nd show cause notice was issued on. 13.09.2017, which was served on the charged officer on 16.09.2017 with due acknowledgement and direction to submit her Page 7 of 9. explanation, as to why she shall not be awarded with forfeiture of increment for 12 months carrying value of 02 Black Marks. Copy of the second show-cause notice is annexed herewith and marked as ANNEXURE-C/4. In accordance to the 2nd Show Cause Notice, the charged S1 submitted her explanation repeating the same prayer for sympathetic consideration and exoneration from the charges levelled against her. Finally the S.P. Keonjhar again went through all the contents of proceeding file and scrutinized all the documents. After careful analysis and due application of mind, the then S.P passed final orders imposing punishment of forfeiture of increment for 12 months carrying value of 02 Black Marks on dt. 04.11.2017, which was served on the charged SI on Dt. 07.11.2017. Hence the petitioner being aggrieved by the final orders passed in Keonjhar District Prog. No. 11 Dt.19.10.2016, the petitioner submitted an appeal before the DIG of Police, WR Rourkela, which was rejected vide DO No. 2566 Dt. 31.12.2019 and the same was also served to the petitioner with proper acknowledgement on dt. 17.03.2020. Copy of the order dated 4.11.2017 passed by the S.P. and copy of order dated 31.12.2019 passed by the D.I.G. of Police, Rourkela are enclosed herewith and marked as ANNEXURE D/4 and E/4 respectively. All other allegations and averments made in this para are hereby disputed and denied.” It is accordingly contended that Petitioner is not entitled to get the relief as prayed for and the writ petition is liable for dismissal. Page 8 of 9. 6. Having heard learned counsel appearing for the Parties and considering the submission made, this Court finds that Petitioner while continuing as Sub Inspector of Police in Ghatagaon Police Station, the impugned proceeding was initiated vide charge memo dtd.19.10.2016 under Annexure-1. The proceeding was initiated with the charges that Petitioner made some payments in respect of some liability incurred by her husband, who was running a rice business at Bhubaneswar along with her in laws. 6.1. Even though in the said proceeding the enquiry officer found the Petitioner guilty of the charges and accordingly Petitioner was imposed with the punishment vide order under Annexure-8, further confirmed vide order under Annexure-10 & 14, this Court is of the view that the very initiation of the proceeding with the charges is not maintainable, as Petitioner has not violated any terms and condition with regard to discharging her duty as S.I. of Police. There is no allegation that Petitioner has violated any service related function. It is also the view of this Court that Petitioner being the wife and an earning member, if she makes any payment towards any liability of her husband, it cannot be said that Petitioner is involved in the business. 6.2. In view of the aforesaid analysis, this Court is inclined to quash the proceeding so initiated vide Memorandum dtd.19.10.2016 under Annexure-1 and the consequential order of punishment issued under Annexure-8, confirmed vide order under Annexure-10 & 14. While quashing the proceeding as well as the punishment imposed vide order under Annexure-8, confirmed vide order under Annexure-10 & 14, this Court allows the writ petition. Page 9 of 9. 7. The writ petition accordingly stands disposed of. (BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY) Judge Sneha