IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C) Nos.7265 of 2022 & 11741 of 2023 Purna Chandra Mahanandia …. Petitioner Mr. P.K. Mahapatra, Adv. -versus- State of Odisha & Anr. …. Opposite Parties Mr. P.K. Panda, ASC COROM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY Order No ORDER 08.05.2026 12. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Mode. 2. Pursuant to order dated 24.03.2026, learned Addl. Standing Counsel produced the instruction so provided by the Department vide letter dated 07.05.2026. The same be kept in record. 3. Basing on the instruction, it is fairly contended that even though the proceeding was initiated jointly against the Petitioner in W.P.(C) No.7265 of 2022 and 11741 of 2023 and another vide memorandum dated 02.04.2008 under Annexure-1, but the proceeding was quashed in respect of one of the delinquent employee namely Binay Kumar Samantray pursuant to the order passed by the Tribunal on 07.11.2016 in O.A. No.2766 of 2014. Even though the State challenged such an order passed by the Tribunal before this Court in W.P.(C) No.23661 of 2017, but the Writ Petition was dismissed vide order dated 31.07.2018. 4. Heard learned counsels appearing for the petitioners in both the Writ Petitions and Mr. P.K. Panda, learned Addl. Standing Counsel for the Opp. Parties. 5. Since the issue involved in both the Writ Petitions is identical, both the Writ Petitions are heard analogously and disposed of by the present common order. 6. It is contended by the learned counsels appearing for the Petitioner that in a joint proceeding initiated against three of the delinquent employees including the present Petitioners vide memorandum dated 02.04.2008, all the delinquent employees when were imposed with the punishment of dismissal vide order dated 17.11.2011, the said order of dismissal was challenged by all the three delinquent employees before the Tribunal by filing separate Original Applications. While the Petitioner in W.P.(C) No.7265 of 2022 approached the Tribunal by filing O.A. No.1436 of 2011, the other two (2) delinquent employees namely Binay Kumar Samantray and the Petitioner in W.P.(C) No.11741 of 2023 moved the Tribunal by filing O.A. No.170 of 2012 and O.A. No.4352(C) of 2011. 6.1. The Tribunal vide order dated 09.11.2012 in O.A. No.1436 of 2011 while quashing the order of dismissal so passed on 17.11.2011, directed the disciplinary authority to cause de novo enquiry by framing relevant issue and to dispose of the proceeding in accordance with law within a period of 6 (six) months from the date of receipt of the order. Similar nature of order was also passed in the other two (2) Original Applications filed by the delinquent employee namely Binay Kumar Samantray and the Petitioner in the connected W.P.(C) No.11741 of 2023. Not only that order passed by the Tribunal in the case of the Petitioner in W.P.(C) No.11741 of 2023, though was challenged by the State by filing W.P.(C) No. 2337 of 2014, but the Writ Petition was dismissed vide order dated 12.03.2014. 6.2. Learned counsels appearing for the Petitioners contended that on the face of the order passed by the Tribunal in all those three (3) Applications, wherein direction was issued to conduct de novo enquiry and to dispose of the proceeding within a period of six (6) months, when the order was not complied with nor the proceeding was disposed of, the co-delinquent employee Binay Kumar Samantray moved the Tribunal, seeking quashing of the proceedings on the ground of non-disposal within the time stipulated by the Tribunal. Such an Original Application filed by Shri Binay Kumar Samantray in O.A. No. 2766 of 2014 was allowed vide order dated 07.11.2016 and the proceeding was treated as closed with a direction to pay all the pensionary benefits as due and admissible. 6.3. It is contended that such an order passed by the Tribunal on 07.11.2016 in O.A. No.2766 of 2014, though was assailed by the State before this Court in W.P.(C) No. 23661 of 2017, but the said Writ Petition was also dismissed vide order dated 31.07.2018. It is further contended that after such dismissal of the Writ Petition, Shri Binay Kumar Samantray was released with all his pensionary benefits as due and admissible. 6.4. It is however contended that basing on the order passed by the Tribunal on 09.11.2012 in O.A. No.1436 of 2011, vide order dated 05.01.2015, de novo enquiry was allowed to commence against all the three (3) delinquent employees. In the said de novo enquiry, the enquiry officer after conducting the enquiry, submitted the report on 22.09.2017 with the following recommendation. “As per the above findings the disciplinary authority may order appropriately to initiate suitable punitive action for imposing major penalties against all the three Delinquent Officers for the combined mis- appropriation of government money amounting to Rs.1.58 crores (Cost of grain Rs.1.49 crores + transportation charges & cost of empty rice bag Rs.0.09 crore) and failed to discharge the government duties as per the OPWD Codal provisions/SGRY (Food for Work Programme) guidelines.” 6.5. Basing on such enquiry report submitted by the enquiry officer and by issuing the 1st and 2nd show-cause in accordance with Rule 15 of the OCS (CCA) Rules, 1962, both the Petitioners were imposed with the punishment of dismissal and held liable to pay the Govt. loss to the tune of Rs.1.58 crores. But since the proceeding against co- delinquent employee Binay Kumar Samantray, pursuant to the order passed by the Tribunal had already been closed, 2/3rd of the misappropriation amount was levied on both the Petitioners, with a direction to recover 1/3rd each from the Petitioners vide order dated 07.02.2022. 6.6. Learned counsel appearing for the Petitioners in both the cases while assailing the impugned order dated 07.02.2022 so passed by the Govt.-Opp. Party No.1, contended that, the proceeding in question is a joint proceeding and order of dismissal passed against all the three (3) delinquent employees vide order dated 17.11.2011, after being interfered with by the Tribunal vide different orders passed in the Original Applications so filed, Opp. Party No.1 was directed to cause de novo enquiry. But such enquiry only commenced with appointment of the Enquiry Officer on 05.01.2015 on 02.11.2017. But due to non- compliance of the direction issued by the Tribunal so far as conclusion of the proceeding is concerned, on the application made by the delinquent employee Binay Kumar Samantray, proceeding against him was treated as closed by the Tribunal vide its order dated 07.11.2016 in O.A. No.2766 of 2014, so confirmed by this Court, in its order dated 31.07.2018 in W.P.(C) No.23661 of 2017. 6.7. It is accordingly contended that since the proceeding is a joint proceeding and the Enquiry Officer after causing de novo enquiry held all the three delinquent employees guilty of the charges and held them liable for recovery of the misappropriation amount, in view of the dropping of the proceeding against Binay Kumar Samantray with release of all his retiral benefits, the order of punishment passed against the present Petitioners vide order dated 07.02.2022 requires interference of this Court, on the ground of parity. 7. 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. 1. It is contended that in the proceeding initiated jointly against both the Petitioners and one Binay Kumar Samantray vide Memorandum dated 02.04.2008, all the three (3) employees were dismissed from their service vide order dated 17.11.2011 under Annexure-5. 7.1. Even though such an order of dismissal passed on 17.11.2011 was interfered with by the Tribunal and direction was issued to cause de novo enquiry and to conclude the proceeding within a period of six (6) months vide different orders passed in the year 2012. But vide order dated 05.01.2015 a fresh Enquiry Officer was appointed and all the three (3) delinquent employees were asked to participate in the de novo enquiry. The Enquiry Officer in its report dated 22.09.2017 held all the three delinquent employees guilty of the charges. 7.2. However, it is fairly contended that since the Department could not conclude the proceeding within the time stipulated by the Tribunal, on the application made by Shri Binay Kumar Samantray in O.A. No.2766 of 2014, the proceeding against Sri Binay Kumar Samantray was treated as closed vide order dated 07.11.2016 of the Tribunal. Against such an order, the State though moved this Court by filing W.P.(C) No.23661 of 2017, but the Writ Petition was dismissed vide order dated 21.07.2018. 7.3. It is contended that even though the proceeding in respect of co- delinquent employee Binay Kumar Samantray was closed pursuant to the order passed by the Tribunal, confirmed by this Court, but the Department proceeded against all the three delinquent employees by causing de novo enquiry. 7.4. Since the Enquiry Officer in his report dated 22.09.2017 held all the three (3) delinquent employees guilty of the charges and by that time such a report was submitted, the proceeding against one of the delinquent employee was already closed pursuant to the order passed by the Tribunal on 07.11.2016, Opp. Party No.1 by following due procedure of law and taking into account the enquiry report, imposed the punishment of dismissal and with a direction to pay 2/3rd of the misappropriated amount in equal share vide order dated 07.02.2022. 7.5. It is contended that since on the remand of the matter and after causing de novo enquiry, Petitioners were held guilty of the charges by the Enquiry Officer and accordingly have been imposed with the punishment vide the impugned order dated 07.02.2022, no illegality or irregularity can be found with the same. 8. Having heard learned counsel for the Parties and considering the submission made, this Court finds that a joint proceeding was initiated under Rule 15 of the OCS (CCA) Rules, 1962 against the present Petitioners and one Binay Kumar Samantray vide memorandum dated 02.04.2008. In the said proceeding when Opp. Party No.1 passed the order of dismissal vide order dated 17.11.2011, the same was assailed by all the three (3) delinquent employees before the Tribunal by filing different Original Applications. The Tribunal vide different orders while quashing the order of dismissal, remitted the matter to Opp. Party No.1, to cause de novo enquiry and to conclude the proceeding within a period of six (6) months. 8.1. Since in terms of the order passed by the Tribunal, the proceeding was not disposed of within the stipulated time period, basing on the application filed by Shri Binay Kumar Samantray in O.A. No.1766 of 2014, proceeding against the said delinquent employee was closed vide order dated 07.11.2016 of the Tribunal. Order passed by the Tribunal on 07.11.2016, though was assailed by the State by filing W.P.(C) No. 23661 of 2017, but the same was dismissed by this Court vide order dated 31.07.2018. 8.2. However basing on the enquiry report submitted on such de novo enquiry on 22.09.2017, and by issuing the 1st and 2nd show-cause to both the Petitioners, the impugned order was passed by Opp. Party No.1 on 07.02.2022, wherein both the Petitioners were dismissed from their services and they were held liable to pay 2/3rd of the loss in equal share. 8.3. This Court taking into account the fact that the proceeding was initiated jointly and proceeding against one of the delinquent employee has been closed pursuant to the order passed by the Tribunal, confirmed by this Court, is of the view that on the face of such closure of the proceeding against one of the delinquent employees, with extension of all his retirement benefits, no such order of dismissal could have been passed against both the Petitioners, so passed on 07.02.2022. Therefore, maintaining parity and the benefit extended in favour of one of the delinquent employee, this Court is of the view that the order of punishment passed against both the Petitioners requires interference of this Court. 8.4. Accordingly, while holding so, this Court is inclined to quash order dated 07.02.2022 so passed by Opp. Party No.1 in the case of the Petitioners. While quashing the order dated 07.02.2022 so passed by Opp. Party No.1, this Court allows both the Writ Petitions. 9. Both the Writ Petitions accordingly stand disposed of. (Biraja Prasanna Satapathy) Judge Jyoti