IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C) No. 30399 of 2022 In the matter of an application under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India. ……………… Ladu Kishore Mohapatra …. Petitioner -versus- Director of Agriculture And Food Production, Odisha & Ors. …. Opposite Parties For Petitioners : Mr. K.C. Sahu, Advocate For Opp. Parties : Mr. S. Das Addl. Standing Counsel PRESENT: THE HON’BLE JUSTICE BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Date of Hearing: 09.02.2026 & Date of Judgment: 09.02.2026 --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Biraja Prasanna Satapathy, J. 1. This matter is taken up through hybrid mode. 2. Heard Mr. K.C. Sahu, learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner and Mr. S. Das, learned Addl. Standing Counsel appearing for the Opp. Parties. 3. The present writ petition has been filed inter alia challenging the order of punishment passed by the disciplinary authority-Opp. Party No. 2 vide order dtd.22.05.2008 under Annexure-12 and the order passed by the appellate authority- Opp. Party No. 1 in confirming the punishment vide order dtd.23.07.2010 under Annexure-13. 4. It is contended that in the proceeding initiated against the Petitioner vide Memorandum dtd.29.07.1993, Petitioner was imposed with the punishment by the disciplinary authority-Opp. Party No. 2 vide order under Annexure-12, further confirmed by the appellate authority-Opp. Party No. 1 vide order dtd.23.07.2010 under Annexure-13. While assailing the order of punishment so passed under Annxure-12 and confirmed vide order under Annexure-13, learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner contended that in the proceeding in question, the enquiry officer after conducting de novo enquiry submitted the report on 26.09.2002 under Annexure-10. After receipt of the report from the enquiry officer Petitioner was issued with the 1st show-cause in terms of the provisions contained under Rule 15(10)(i)(a) of the OCS (CCA) Rules, 1962. Finding of the Enquiry Officer reads as follows:- “After proper application of mind and statement recorded from Smt. D. Umakumari, the Enquiring Officer arrives on the following conclusion. 1. That Sri L.K. Mohapatra has deliberately avoid to attend the enquiry 3rd times 1.c. on 14.7.95. 24.11.2000 and 23.9.2002. 2. That, thrice, the Govt. money towards expenditure on P.O.L., D.A. of three Enquiring Officer & Presenting Officer & other related expenditure occurred unnecessarily. 3. That Sri L.K. Mohapatra has some other intention to avoid this type of enquiry. 4. That Smt. P. Umakumari is a innocent lady who is facing a lot of problems from the date of her husband death. 5. That the charges framed against Sri L.K. Mohapatra Sr. Clerk of D.A.O. Boudh relating to cheating of Rs.10,000/- and Rs.2,500/- is established. 6. That suitable decision may please be taken to decide the proceeding case of Sri L.K. Mohapatra with no longer time.” 4.1. It is contended that after issuance of such a 1st show-cause vide notice dtd.30.01.2003 under Annexure-11, no 2nd show-cause was issued proposing the punishment in terms of the provisions contained under Rule 15(10)(i)(b) of the Rules. Rule 15(10)(i)(b) of the Rules reads as follows:- “15. Procedure for imposing penalties- 15(10)(i)(b) On receipt of the representation referred to in Sub-clause (a) the disciplinary authority having regard to the findings on the charges, is of the opinion that any of the penalties specified in Clauses (vi) to (ix) should be imposed, he shall furnish to the delinquent Government servant a statement of its findings along with brief reasons for disagreement, if any, with the findings of the inquiring officer and give him a notice by Registered Post or otherwise stating the penalty proposed to be imposed o him and calling upon him to submit within a specified time such representation as he may wish to make against the proposed penalty: Provided that in every case in which it is necessary to consult the Commission under the provision of the Constitution of India and the Orissa Public Service Commission (Limitation of Functions) Regulation, 1989 the record of Inquiry together with a copy of the notice given under Sub-clause (a) and the representation if any, received within the specified time in response to such notice shall be forwarded by the disciplinary authority to the Commission for its advice.” 4.2. It is also contended that non-issuance of the 2nd show-cause to the Petitioner proposing the punishment is also apparent on the face of the order of punishment passed under Annexure-12. It is contended that since statutory provisions contained under Rule 15(10)(i)(b) has not been followed, the impugned order of punishment is not sustainable in the eye of law and so also the appellate order passed under Annexure- 13. 4.3. In support of his aforesaid submission, learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner relied on the following decisions:- 1. Jogesh Chandra Sharma Vs. State of Odisha and Others WPC (OAC) No.3038 of 2017, disposed of on 13.08.2024 2. Narayan Prasad Behera Vs. State of Odisha & Others, WPC (OA) No.2525 of 2018, disposed of on 24.07.2024 3. J. Sameswar Rao Vs. State of Orissa and Others, WPC (OAC) No.1536 of 2015, disposed of on 28.08.2023. 4.4. In the case of Jogesh Chandra Sharma, this Court in paragraph-6.1 has held as follows: 6.1. In view of such non-compliance of the statutory provisions contained under Rule-15(10)(i) (b) of the Rules and placing reliance on the decision in the case of Raj Kishore Sahu as cited (supra), this Court is inclined to quash the order of punishment so passed against the petitioner vide office order dated 18.02.2016 under Annexure-5, further confirmed by the Appellate Authority vide order dated 03.08.2017 under Annexure-7. While quashing both the orders, the Writ Petition is allowed and disposed of. 4.5. In the case of Narayan Prasad Behera, this Court in paragraphs-4 & 4.1 has held as follows: 4. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and considering the submissions made, this Court finds that the proceeding was initiated against the petitioner under Rule 15 of the Rules vide memorandum dated 25.03.2017 under Annexure-6. The petitioner after filling his written statement of defence participated in the enquiry. Enquiry Officer while submitting the report on 20.10.2017 under Annexure-9 clearly opined that because of the suffering and treatment, petitioner continued on leave. While taking such a view, enquiry officer suggested that Govt. may take a lenient view to regularize the period of absence as leave. 4.1. On the face of the such finding of the Enquiry Officer, this Court finds that while Issuing the 2nd show-cause by differing with the finding of the Enquiry Officer no disagreement note was enclosed to the 2nd show-cause so issued on 29.01.2018 under Annexure-11 in terms of the provisions contained under Rule 15(10) of the Rules. Since no disagreement note was enclosed to the 2nd show-cause notice issued under Annexure- 11, which amounts to non-compliance of the statutory provisions, placing reliance on the decisions of the Hon'ble Apex Court as cited supra as well as of this Court, this Court is inclined to quash the order of punishment so passed against the petitioner vide the impugned order dated 25.05.2018 under Annexure-13. While quashing the same, this Court allows the Writ Petition. 4.6. In the case of J. Sameswar Rao, this Court in paragraphs-6.1 & 6.2 has held as follows: 6.1. Taking into account the admission made by Sri Venkateswar Das, as reflected in Annexure-1 and the order of punishment so passed against Sri Das under Annexure- 10, the Inquiry officer in the de-novo enquiry conducted by him while submitting the enquiry report on 06.08.2013, suggested therein that since Sri Das, Jr. Clerk has admitted the entire mis-appropriation, punishment of stoppage of three annual increment with cumulative effect be passed against the Petitioner. The Inquiry officer taking into account the long period of suspension of 11 years also suggested to regularize the said period of suspension as "Leave Due". The Inquiry Officer also suggested that with regard to the recovery of the mis-appropriated amount, Government may wait till final disposal of the Criminal case. 6.2. On the face of such finding of the Inquiry officer, this Court finds that while Issuing the 2nd show-cause vide notice dt.09.10.12014 under Annexure-9, Opp. Party No. 1 as provided under Rule 15(10(i)(b) of the Rules has not given his disagreement note and the reason for not agreeing with the finding of the Inquiry Officer. In view of such non-compliance of the statutory provision and the order of punishment passed against Sri Venkateswar Das under Annexure-10 as well as placing reliance on the decisions so cited (supra) and the order of acquittal passed against the Petitioner in the Criminal Proceeding, this Court is inclined to interfere with the impugned order of punishment so passed on 24.03.2015 under Annexure-14. While interfering with the same, this Court is of the view that no recovery can be effected from the Petitioner for the alleged mis-appropriation in view of the admission made by the other employee and the order passed against him under Annexure-10. This Court further directs Opp. Party No. 1 to treat the period of suspension as "Leave Due" and pass a fresh order to that effect.” 4.7. It is also contended that even though Petitioner has retired since 31.05.2008, because of the nature of punishment imposed and the pendency, Petitioner save and except the provisional pension has not yet been sanctioned with retiral benefits as due and admissible. It is accordingly contended that the writ petition be disposed of with quashing of the impugned order of punishment so issued under Annexure-12 further confirmed under Annexure-13 and with a direction on the Opp. Party No. 2 to release the retiral benefits of the Petitioner as due and admissible without any further delay. 5. Mr. S. Das, learned Addl. Standing Counsel on the other hand made his submissions basing on the stand taken in the counter affidavit. It is contended that after receipt of the enquiry report, Petitioner though was issued with the 1st show-cause on 31.01.2003 under Annexure-11, but Petitioner never submitted his reply to the same and instead moved the Tribunal by filing O.A. No. 235 of 2003. In the said Original Application, Joint Director of the Agriculture, office of the DA & SP, Odisha, Bhubaneswar was requested vide office letter dtd.278 dtd.11.01.2008 to file counter affidavit. 5.1. It is also contended that since after issuance of the 1st show-cause, the matter was carried to the Tribunal, no further action was taken till issuance of the impugned order of punishment under Annexure-12 on 22.08.2008. It is also contended that since Petitioner moved an appeal and the appellate authority has confirmed the order of punishment, no illegality or irregularity can be found with the impugned order of punishment. Stand taken in Para 9 of the counter affidavit reads as follows:- “9. That, in reply to the Paragraphs No. 11, 12, 22, 23 24 & 26 of this writ application, it is humbly submitted that the re- enquiry was conducted after request of the instruction from the Establishment Officer IV, O/o. DA & F P(O), Bhubaneswar vide his letter No. 962 dated 17.04.2001. The 1st show cause notice was issued vide Order No. 633 dated 31.01.2003 of the DDA(K/R), Phulbani now CDAO, Kandhamal, Phulbani i.e. respondent No. 2 to which the delinquent Officer i.e. the applicant was silent and did not give any reply but filed a case in the Hon'ble O.A.T., Bhubaneswar vide O.A. No.235/03. The Joint Director of Agriculture (Administration), O/o the D.A & F.P., (O), Bhubaneswar was requested vide this Office letter No. 278 Dt.11.01.2008 to give proper instructions to file counter in the Hon'ble O.A.T., BBSR against O.A.No.235/2003 to issue suitable instructions regarding recovery of amount of Rs.12,500/- as indicated by the Enquiring Officer i.e. Respondent No. 03. Finally the Establishment Officer Officer - III, D.A. & F.P(O), Bhubaneswar has communicated a letter to file counter in the Hon'ble O.A.T., Bhubaneswar on behalf of the State Respondents vide his letter No. 1591 dated 30.07.2008. Hence the delay caused was not intentional, but due to official procedure.” 6. Having heard learned counsel appearing for the Parties and considering the submissions made, this Court finds that while in service Petitioner was proceeded with in a proceeding under Rule 15 of the OCS (CCA) Rules, 1962 vide memorandum dtd.29.07.1993. As found in the said proceeding after causing de novo enquiry, the enquiry officer submitted the report on 25.09.2002 under Annexure- 10. 6.1. It is found that after receipt of the enquiry report dtd.25.09.2002, Petitioner was issued with the 1st show-cause on 30.01.2003 under Annexure-11. But as found from the impugned order dtd.22.08.2008, after issuance of the 1st show-cause and in absence of any reply made by the Petitioner, the proceeding was disposed of with imposition of the following punishment:- “1. The period of suspension is treated as such. 2. The cheating amount of Rs. 10,000/- and an amount of Rs. 2500/- received as bribe from Smt. P. Uma Kumari, W/O Late B. Gajapati Rao, Ex-Sr. Clerk is to be recovered from him and be paid to Sut. P. Uma Kumari. 3. The delinquent Sri Ladu Kishor Mohapatra, Sr. Clerk is censured.” Such order of punishment as found, was confirmed by the appellate authority vide order td.23.07.2010 under Annexure-13. 6.2. This Court after going through the impugned order of punishment so passed by the disciplinary authority-Opp. Party No. 2 under Annexure-12, finds that after issuance of the 1st show-cause on 30.01.2003 and in absence of any reply made by the Petitioner to the same, no 2nd show-cause in terms of the provisions contained under Rule 15(10)(i)(b) of the Rules was ever issued to the Petitioner proposing the punishment. Without issuing the 2nd show-cause as provided under Rules, the impugned order of punishment was passed by the disciplinary authority-Opp. Party No. 2 vide order dtd.22.08.2008 under Annexure-12 and confirmed by the appellate authority vide order under Annexure-13. 6.3. Since statutory provisions contained under Rule 15(10)(i)(b) of the Rules has not been followed and the proceeding was disposed of with imposition of the punishment, placing reliance on the decisions of this Court as cited (supra), this Court is of the view that no such order of punishment could have been issued. 6.4. Therefore, this Court while quashing the punishment imposed vide the impugned order under Annexure-12 so confirmed vide order under Annexure-13, directs Opp. Party Nos. 1 & 2 to release the retiral benefits of the Petitioner as due and admissible as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of three (3) months hence. If the benefit is not extended within the aforesaid time period, Petitioner will be entitled to get interest @ 6% on the retiral benefits from the date of his retirement till the benefit is extended. 7. The writ petition accordingly stands disposed of with the aforesaid observation and direction. (BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY) Judge Orissa High Court, Cuttack Dated the 9th February, 2026/Sneha