Page 1 of 4. IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK WP(C) No.5971 of 2025 Minati Garnayak ..... Petitioner Represented By Adv. - Anirudha Das -versus- 1) Mahanadi Coalfieds Ltd ..... Opposite Parties 2) General Manager, Mcl, Hingula Area 3) Chief Manager(mining) Inquiry Officer, Ha Mcl Represented By Adv. - CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADITYA KUMAR MOHAPATRA ORDER 04.03.2025 Order No. 01. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual /Physical Mode). 2. Heard learned counsel for the Petitioner Perused the writ application as well as the documents annexed thereto. 3. The Petitioner has filed the present writ application with the following prayer: “Therefore, it is prayed that this Hon’ble Court may be graciously pleased to admit this writ petition and after hearing the parties be further pleased to : Quash the impugned notice dated 04.02.2025 and 12.02.2025 under Annexue-1 & 2 by holding the same as bad, illegal and contrary to law as well as violative of the Clause-28.1 and 28.3 of Standing Order of MCL and thereby direct the authorities to refrain themselves from repeatedly issuing malicious and baseless notices against the Petitioner any Page 2 of 4. further in the interest of justice; AND Granting any other relief(s) as the Petitioners would be deemed fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case;” 4. Learned counsel for the Petitioner at the outset contended that the Petitioner is working under MCL vide Employee No.77007995 in the Safety Section, Hingula Area, MCL, Talcher. While working as a General Mazdoor under the MCL, the Chief Manager (Mining)/Inquiry Officer, HA, MCL, issued a notice in a Departmental Proceeding and served the Memo of charges on the Petitioner vide letter dated 28.05.2022. Although the memo of charges has been served, it is alleged by the learned counsel for the Petitioner that the Petitioner has not been served with copies of the documents which the department could rely against the Petitioner in the Departmental Proceeding. In such view of the matter, the Petitioner requested the Disciplinary Authority to provide him with the copies that have been relied upon by the department in the memo of charges. However without adhering to the request made by the Petitioner, the Petitioner was again issued with a notice on 04.02.2025 and thereafter on 12.02.2025, she was directed to file a Written statement of defence. Learned counsel for the Petitioner further submitted that in absence of relevant documents, which have been relied upon by the department in the memo of charges, the Petitioner is not in a position to file any effective reply/written statement of defence before the authority. As such, the Petitioner is seriously prejudiced as she is not able to file her written Page 3 of 4. statement of defence in the Departmental Proceeding. 5. In course of his argument, learned counsel for the Petitioner, further referring to the representation dated 14.02.2025 under Annexure-3 to the Writ Petition, submitted before this Court that the Petitioner has specifically approached the Chief Manager, (Mining)/Inquiry Officer,(Opposite Party No.3) to provide her the copies of documents that have been relied upon by the department and that in absence of such document, the Petitioner is not in a position to file her reply. As such, not being able to file a reply would cause serious prejudice to the Petitioner. However, ignoring such request of the Petitioner for supply of such documents, the authority is insisting on the Petitioner to file her statement of defence. Being aggrieved by such conduct of the Opposite Parties, the Petitioner has approached this Court by filing the present Writ Petition. 6. Having heard learned counsel for the Petitioner, on a careful examination of the background facts as well as the documents annexed to the Writ Petition, this Court observes that the grievance of the Petitioner in the present Writ Petition is with regard to the non-supply of documents, which the Petitioner requires in order to submit an effective reply/written statement of defence. At this juncture, this Court would like to observe that law is very well settled that the delinquent Officer should be supplied with the documents that have been relied upon by the department. Such documents shall either be provided to the Petitioner or the Petitioner be allowed to examine the document, if the documents are voluminous in Page 4 of 4. nature. In such view of the matter, this Court deems it proper to dispose of the Writ Petition at the stage of admission by directing the Opposite Parties to first consider the representation of the Petitioner under Annexure-3, within a period of four weeks and dispose of the same by passing a speaking and reasoned order. Further, it is open to the Opposite Parties to proceed with the pending Departmental Proceeding after disposal of the representation under Annexure-3 as has been directed herein above. Any decision taken on the representation of the Petitioner under Annexure-3 shall be communicated to the Petitioner within one week thereafter. 7. With the aforesaid observation/direction the Writ Petition stands disposed of. 8. Issue urgent certified copy of this order as per Rules. ( A.K. Mohapatra ) Judge RKS