IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P(C) No.23248 of 2024 Union of India …. Petitioner Mr. P.K. Parhi, DSGI Along with Mr. S.S. Kashyap, Sr. Panel Counsel -versus- Biswa Nath Parida …. Opp. Party Mr. S.K. Ojha, Advocate CORAM: JUSTICE KRISHNA SHRIPAD DIXIT JUSTICE CHITTARANJAN DASH Order No. ORDER 12.02.2026 07. 1. The Union of India, by means of this writ application seeks to quash the order dated 30.04.2024 and 28.06.2024 passed in O.A. No.260/00541 of 2019 and R.A. No.260/00013 of 2024. 2. The factual matrix giving rise to the writ application runs as follows: The sole Opposite Party namely Biswa Nath Parida, while was working as Medical Assistant in ARC Hospital, Charbatia, Choudwar, Cuttack faced disciplinary action for the misconduct reproduced as follows: - “Article-I Sh. Biswanath Parida, while performing his duties as Medical Assistant at ARC Hospital, Charbatia took two photographs and made one video clip of a minor girl, Ms. Neha, daughter of Sh. N. K. Sivach, with his Mobile phone on 23.05.2012, despite her objection and kept on praising her beauty and dress. On her subsequent visit to the hospital on 04.07.2012, Sh. Biswanath Parida showed the hard copies of the photographs developed out of the soft copies in his mobile phone to Ms. Neha and insisted to present her on her birthday for which he asked her birthday date. Taking photographs and video clips of a minor girl with personal mobile phone and storing it for a long period and subsequently developing hard copies photographs without the consent of either the girl or her parents do reflect the sign of turpitude and uncivilized conduct on the part of Sh. Parida II. Past record of Sh. Biswanath Parida shows that he had committed the misconduct of abusing a female patient on 03.01.2006 at ARC Hospital, Charbatia for which Charge Sheet under Rule 14 was issued and after the charges were proven and he was awarded the penalty of reduction of pay by two stages for the period of 05 years w.e.f. 01.08.2006 with cumulative effect. III. By this aforesaid act of commission and omission, Sh. Biswanath Parida has conducted himself in a manner unbecoming of a Govt. Servant & thus has contravened Rule 3(1) (iii) of CCS (Conduct) rules, 1964.” Pursuant thereto, a departmental enquiry was conducted. Upon conclusion of the enquiry, the Enquiry Officer, vide report dated 11.06.2013, found the charge levelled against the Opposite Party to be proved. However, the Disciplinary Authority, being of the view that the findings of the Enquiry Officer were not in conformity with the provisions of the CCS (CCA) Rules, did not accept the report and directed a de novo enquiry by appointing a fresh Enquiry Officer as well as a Presenting Officer. Aggrieved thereby, the Opposite Party-delinquent officer approached the learned Central Administrative Tribunal, Cuttack Bench, in O.A. No. 260/00541 of 2019. The Tribunal came to hold that the delinquent officer had been denied the principles of natural justice in a manner warranting interference with the order, wherein the learned Tribunal observed as follows: - “11. From the record, it establishes that the Review Applicants through this RA virtually seek for rehearing of the matter on merit, which is impermissible in law. Thus, going by the standpoint of the review applicants vis-i-vis the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court, this Tribunal is at a loss to come to the conclusion that there was any error apparent on the face of record requiring review of the order. Also, retirement of the applicant is hardly of any ground to review the order.” The Appellant, being of the view that the learned Tribunal had misconstrued material facts and arrived at an erroneous conclusion, preferred a review application bearing R.A. No. 260/00013 of 2024. Upon dismissal of the said review application, the Appellant has approached this Court. 3. The learned DSGI, along with the learned Senior Panel Counsel, vehemently argued that the learned Tribunal ought not to have quashed the order dated 03.07.2019 passed by the Appellate authority, whereby it was directed that the disciplinary proceeding be continued from the stage contemplated under Rule 15 of the CCS (CCA) Rules. It was further submitted that the learned Tribunal erred in holding that the Disciplinary Authority had not exercised its powers in accordance with Rule 15 of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965, and thereby committed an error apparent on the face of the record. 4. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the sole Opposite Party-delinquent officer resisted the contentions raised on behalf of the Appellant and sought to justify the impugned order passed by the learned Tribunal. He further submitted that, while accepting the punishment imposed upon the delinquent officer, this Court may consider limiting the penalty to withdrawal of three increments without cumulative effect, particularly in view of the fact that the delinquent officer has since superannuated. 5. Having heard learned counsel for the respective parties, this Court, by order dated 05.02.2026, passed the following order: - “During course of hearing, having turned the pages of the Appeal papers, we found that keeping this enquiry in respect of an event that took place in 2012 in continuation, is not in the interest of any party and therefore, we suggested that if both the sides agree for a lesser punishment than awarded, the entire proceeding itself can be put to rest. Page 5 of 7 2. Learned counsel appearing for the Opposite Party-employee very fairly submitted that his client is in principle agreeable with this suggestion, provided that the cumulative effectivity is removed. However, learned Senior Panel Counsel appearing for the Petitioner seeks a short accommodation to consult with his official client and come back.” 6. In compliance with the aforesaid order, the learned Senior Panel Counsel appearing for the Union of India submitted, upon instructions, that the Appellant is agreeable to bring the litigation to a quietus by accepting a reduction of the punishment and restricting it to withdrawal of three increments without cumulative effect. The said proposal was fairly and ungrudgingly accepted by learned counsel appearing for the Opposite Party-delinquent officer. 7. Before parting with the matter, this Court considers it necessary to observe that public health professionals, being custodians of community health and entrusted with the dignity and privacy of patients, are bound to uphold the highest standards of etiquette, confidentiality, and ethical conduct. Their professional obligations are not confined to clinical competence alone, but extend to preserving patient autonomy, maintaining strict confidentiality of personal information, and ensuring that trust reposed in them is neither compromised nor exploited in any manner inconsistent with accepted medical ethics and service discipline. It is further to be emphasised that the right to privacy and dignity of every individual stands recognised as an intrinsic facet of the right to life and personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, and any intrusion into such privacy, particularly in a healthcare setting, must withstand the strictest scrutiny of legality, necessity, and proportionality. The act of taking, storing, or sharing photographs of patients without strict compliance with governing norms is impermissible and, in many circumstances, unlawful. Save and except where such documentation is indispensable for direct clinical care, and only upon obtaining prior, informed, specific, written, and revocable consent from the patient or the lawful guardian, no image ought to be captured or retained. Such consent must clearly disclose the purpose of the photograph, the persons authorised to access it, and the manner and extent of its proposed use, including any display or publication. Deviation from obtaining such a consent would render the person taking photograph, as unethical and illegal being amenable to criminal act besides misconduct in profession, which is apparent in the instant case, though may not strictly be intended from the point of view of peculiarity in the profession. This direction shall be borne in mind and scrupulously complied with by all concerned in the discharge of their professional duties. 8. While disposing this Writ Appeal, we therefore confirm the impugned order of the learned Tribunal passed in O.A. No.260/00541 of 2019 in holding the action of the Authority as legal and proper but with the modification restricting the punishment to withdrawal of three annual increments only without cumulative effect. 9. As a necessary corollary, the writ Petition is allowed in part; the cost of the litigation being made easy. Web copy of this order to be acted upon by all concerned. (Krishna Shripad Dixit) Judge (Chittaranjan Dash) Judge Bijay/Sarbani