IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C) No.26626 of 2023 Dillip Kumar Mallik …. Petitioner Mr. P. Anup Dash, Advocate -versus- State of Odisha & Ors. …. Opposite Parties Mr. P.K. Panda, ASC CORAM: JUSTICE BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY Order No. ORDER 11.03.2026 05. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual/Physical) Mode. 2. Heard learned counsel appearing for the Parties. 3. The present Writ Petition has been filed inter alia challenging the impugned notification issued by the Government in the Law Department vide Notification dtd.09.05.2023 under Annexure-3. Vide the same notification, Petitioner was terminated with immediate effect on the ground of allegation. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner contended that Petitioner vide notification dtd. 20.04.2020 under Annexure-1, was appointed as a Special Public Prosecutor in the district of Dhenkanal to conduct the cases coming under the provisions of the POCSO Act. 4.1. It is contended that while so continuing, a notice was issued to him by the Public Prosecutor, Dhenakanal on 01.03.2023 under Annexure-2, with a direction to remain present before the said authority on 03.03.2023 for enquiry on the allegations made against the Petitioner before the Director, Public Prosecution, Odisha, Bhubaneswar-Opposite Party No.3. 4.2. Learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner contended that Petitioner though appeared before the Public Prosecutor, Dhenkanal on 03.03.2023 pursuant to Annexure-2, but thereafter no further communication was made with regard to the enquiry and submission of enquiry report if any. Not only that Petitioner along with the notice issued under Annexure-2 was never provided with the complaints if any made before Opposite Party No.3. However, while the matter stood thus, Petitioner was terminated vide the impugned notification dtd. 09.05.2023 under Annexure-3. 4.3. It is contended that since basing on the allegation, copy of which was never provided and after issuance of Annexure-2, Petitioner was never given an opportunity to participate in the enquiry, basing on the enquiry report if any, and prior to being provided with the copy of the enquiry report, Petitioner could not have been terminated vide the impugned Notification dtd.09.05.2023 under Annxure-3. 4.4. It is further contended that this Court while directing learned State Counsel to obtain instruction vide order dtd.23.08.2023, passed an interim order to the effect that any appointment made in the meantime for the post of Special Public Prosecutor, Dhenkanal shall be subject to final outcome of the present Writ Petition. 4.5. It is also fairly contended that no such fresh appointment as against the post of Special Public Prosecutor dealing with POCSO cases, has been made as on date. However, learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner vehemently contended that since the complaint and the enquiry report made on such complaint were never provided to the Petitioner, Petitioner could not have been terminated vide the impugned order under Annexure-3 and the order of termination requires interference of this Court. 5. Mr. P.K. Panda, learned Addl. Standing Counsel for the State on the other hand made his submission basing on the stand taken in the counter affidavit so filed by Opposite Party Nos.4 & 5. 5.1. It is contended that Petitioner after being appointment as a Special Public Prosecutor vide Notification dtd. 20.04.2020 under Annexure-1, allegations were made against him before the Director, Public Prosecution- Opposite Party No.3, complaint of which was received on 19.11.2022. Basing on the said complaint, Petitioner was noticed by the Public Prosecutor, Dhenkanal -Opposite Party No.5 on 01.03.2023 under Annexure-2, calling the Petitioner to participate in the enquiry, so fixed to 03.03.2023. 5.2. After such appearance of the Petitioner on 03.03.2023, and Opposite Party No.5 after conducting the enquiry on different dates which includes 03.03.2023 & 29.03.2023 submitted the report on 18.04.2023 under Annexure-F/5. In the enquiry report, Petitioner was held guilty for making a demand of Rs.2,000/- from the complainant. In view of such report submitted by the Enquiry Officer vide letter dtd.18.04.2023 under Annexure-G/5, Petitioner was terminated vide the impugned Notification dtd.09.05.2023 under Annexure-3. 5.3. It is accordingly contended that since Petitioner was found guilty by the Enquiry Officer-Opposite Party No.5, on the compliant made against him under Annexure-D/5, no illegality or irregularity can be found with the impugned Notification dtd.09.05.2023 under Annexure-3, terminating the Petitioner as Special Public Prosecutor. 6. Having heard learned counsel appearing for the Parties and considering the submissions made, this Court finds that Petitioner was appointed as Special Public Prosecutor vide Notification dtd.20.04.2020 so issued under Annexure-1 of Opposite Party No.1. Petitioner while so continuing he was issued with the notice on 01.03.2023 under Annexure-2 by the Public Prosecutor, Dhenkanal-Opposite Party No.5 with a direction to participate in the enquiry so fixed to 03.03.2023. 6.1. However, it is found from the record that after receipt of the complaint from the complainant by Opposite Party No.3 on 19.11.2022, enquiry was conducted on 14.12.2022 and 24.11.2022 and in the said enquiry, Petitioner was never noticed to participate. However, pursuant to the notice issued under Annexure- 2, Petitioner participated in the enquiry so conducted on 03.03.2023. As found from the enquiry report so available under Annexure-F/5, the enquiry though was conducted on different dates, but Petitioner only participated in the enquiry on 03.03.2023. However basing on the enquiry report so submitted by the Enquiry Officer-cum- Public Prosecutor-Opposite Party No.5 on 18.04.2023 under Annexure-F/5 and without providing copy of the report to the Petitioner, Petitioner was straight away terminated vide the impugned Notification dtd. 09.05.2023 under Annexure-3. 6.2. Since this Court after going through the materials available on record, finds that Petitioner never participated in the enquiry so conducted by the Enquiry Officer-cum-Public Prosecutor on different dates save and except on 03.03.2003 and Petitioner was never provided with the complaint so made by the complainant before Opposite Party No.3 on 19.11.2022 nor the enquiry report so submitted by Opposite Party No.5 on 18.04.2023, this Court is of the view that no enquiry in accordance with law was ever conducted by the Enquiry Officer who happens to be the Public Prosecutor, Dhenkanal-Opposite Party No.5 and principle of natural justice was never followed. 6.3. In view of such material irregularities which are apparent on the face of the record, this Court is inclined to quash the impugned Notification dtd.09.05.2023 so issued by Opposite Party No.1 under Annexure-3. While quashing the Notification dtd.09.05.2023 and since it is contended that no fresh appointment has been made in the meantime, this Court directs Opposite Party No.1 to allow the Petitioner to continue in his assignment in terms of the order issued under Annexure-1 till a fresh decision is taken on the complaint dtd.19.11.2022 with due enquiry to be made by a fresh enquiry officer in accordance with law. 6.4. This Court directs Opposite Party No.3 to cause the enquiry through any Enquiry Officer, save and except the Public Prosecutor or any Special / Addl. Public Prosecutor engaged in the district of Dhenkanal. Opposite Party No.3 is directed to provide a copy of the complaint dtd.19.11.2022 on the Petitioner and allow him 4(four) weeks’ time to submit his reply. After receipt of the reply, the enquiry be conducted in accordance with law and by a fresh Enquiry Officer to be appointed as per the order of this Court. 7. Accordingly, the Writ Petition stands disposed of. (Biraja Prasanna Satapathy) Judge Subrat