Page 1 of 4. IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK WP(C) No. 35919 of 2023 Ranjita Mallick ..... Petitioner Mr. S.C.D. Dash, Advocate -versus- State of Odisha & Ors. ..... Opposite Parties Mr. S.P. Das, ASC CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY ORDER 22.01.2026 Order No. 06 1. This matter is taken up through hybrid mode. 2. Heard Mr. S.C.D. Dash, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Mr. K.K. Swain, learned counsel for the Petitioner and Mr. S.P. Das, learned Addl. Standing Counsel appearing for the Opp. Parties. 3. The present writ petition has been filed inter alia challenging order dtd.11.09.2023 so passed by the Govt.-Opp. Party No. 1 under Annexure-5. 4. It is contended that in the proceeding initiated against the Petitioner vide Memorandum dtd.15.07.2020, Petitioner filed his written statement of defence on 20.08.2020 under Annexure-2. Petitioner thereafter participated in the enquiry and the enquiry officer after completing the enquiry, submitted the report under Annexure-3 with the following finding:- “Thus, it appears from the enquiry that there was an urgent need of stone materials to complete the project as intimated by the EE. Telengiri Canal Division, Bariniput and the quarry under discussion was the only nearby quarry having Mining Plan. The E.E. Telengiri Canal Division, Page 2 of 4. Bariniput also did not foresee any damage to the dam. No objection was also received from any quarters in this regard. The unfortunate accident could not be foreseen and the Delinquent Officer cannot be directly held responsible for the same. However, continuing quarry operations after stoppage of quarry by Tahsildar beyond 8.02.2018 should have been stopped earlier if the Delinquent Officer or her staff visited the site in time. The fact came to notice only after raid by the Sub-Collector, Jeypore on 23.04.2018. Hence, the Delinquent Officer is partly guilty of the charges. Accordingly, the Delinquent Officer may be censured in this Departmental proceeding for not diligently carrying out checks at the mine between Feb-April, 2018.” 4. It is contended that on receipt of the enquiry report, Petitioner though was issued with the 1st show-cause, but after submission of the reply to the same and without issuing 2nd show-cause proposing the penalty if any, in terms of the provisions contained under Rule 15(10)(i)(b) of the Rules, the order of punishment was straight away passed vide the impugned order dtd.11.09.2023 under Annexure-5. Rule 15(10)(i)(b) of the Rules reads as follows:- “(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 Page 3 of 4. 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.” 4.1. Learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner contended that since statutory provision so contained under Rule 15(10)(i)(b) of the Rules was never followed with issuance of the 2nd show-cause, the order of punishment passed under Annexure-5 requires interference of this Court. 5. Even though a counter affidavit has been filed by the Opp. Party No. 1, but there is no document enclosed to the said counter showing issuance of the 2nd show-cause to the Petitioner proposing the punishment therein in terms of the aforesaid provision. 6. Having heard learned counsel appearing for the Parties and considering the submission made, this Court finds that in the proceeding initiated against the Petitioner vide Memorandum dtd.15.07.2020 after completion of the enquiry, the enquiry officer submitted the report under Annexure-3. 6.1. As found from the impugned order and which is apparent on the face of the record, after receipt of the enquiry report, Petitioner was issued with the 1st show-cause on 10.10.2022. However, taking into Page 4 of 4. consideration the reply made by the Petitioner to the 1st show-cause and without issuance of the 2nd show-cause in terms of the provisions contained under Rule 15(10)(i)(b) of the Rules, the proceeding was finalized with imposition of the punishment vide the impugned order dtd.11.09.2023 under Annexure-5. 6.2. Since statutory provisions so contained under Rule 15(10)(i)(b) of the Rules has not been followed, this Court is of the view that the order of punishment is not sustainable in the eye of law. Therefore, while quashing the said order, this Court remits the matter to Opp. Party No. 1 to proceed with the proceeding from the stage of issuance of the 2nd show-cause and dispose of the same in accordance with law. Since the proceeding is of the year 2020, it is expected that Opp. Party No. 1 will dispose of the same as expeditiously as possible. 7. The writ petition accordingly stands disposed of. (BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY) Judge Sneha