IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C) No.38218 of 2023 Abhimanyu Mohanty …. Petitioner Mr. J.K. Khuntia, Advocate -versus- State of Odisha and Others …. Opposite Parties Mr. S. Das, ASC CORAM: JUSTICE BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY Order No. ORDER 23.06.2025 11. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual/Physical) Mode. 2. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 3. The present Writ Petition has been filed inter alia challenging the order of punishment of dismissal passed against the petitioner vide order dated 22.10.2014 under Annexure-7, so confirmed by the Appellate Authority vide order dated 01.07.2023 under Annexure-9. 4. It is contended that in the proceeding initiated against the petitioner vide Memorandum dated 06.06.2014 under Annexure-1, petitioner was imposed with the punishment of dismissal from service vide order dated 22.10.2014 under Annexure-7 of O.P. No.2. 4.1. It is contended that challenging such order of punishment, petitioner initially moved the Odisha Administrative Tribunal by filing O.A. No.3577(C) of 2014. However, the matter on being transferred to this Court, it was disposed of vide order dated 16.12.2022 by granting liberty to the petitioner to move the Appellate Authority and for its consideration in accordance with law. 4.2. It is contended that in terms of the liberty granted by this Court in its order dated 16.12.2022 in W.P.C(OAC) No.3577 of 2014, petitioner filed a detailed appeal vide Annexure-8 inter alia taking various grounds. 4.3. However, it is contended that without hearing the petitioner and issuing any notice after filing of the appeal, the appeal was rejected vide order dated 01.07.2023 under Annexure-9. It is also contended that no reason has been assigned with regard to not accepting the grounds taken by the petitioner in his memo of appeal under Annexure-8. 4.4. It is accordingly contended that since principle of natural justice has not been followed nor any reason has been assigned with regard to non-accepting the grounds taken in the appeal, the impugned order is not sustainable in the eye of law. It is accordingly contended that the matter be remitted to O.P. No.1 to re-decide the appeal by giving due opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. 5. Learned Addl. Standing Counsel while supporting the impugned order contended that taking into account the nature of charges made against the petitioner in the Memorandum dated 06.06.2014 under Annexure-1, petitioner after being given due opportunity of hearing, was imposed with the punishment of dismissal vide office order dated 22.10.2014 under Annexure-7. 5.1. Even though pursuant to the liberty granted by this Court, petitioner preferred an appeal under Annexure-8, but the appellate authority after due consideration of the same, rejected the appeal vide order dated 01.07.2023 under Annexure-9. It is accordingly contended that since the order of punishment passed against the petitioner has been confirmed by the Appellate Authority vide order under Annexure-9, punishment so imposed requires no interference. 6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and considering the submissions made, this Court finds that petitioner while in service as a Head Sevak, a proceeding was initiated under Rule-15 of the OCS (CCA) Rules, 1962 vide memorandum dated 06.06.2014 under Annexure-1. 6.1. As found, the said proceeding was disposed of finally vide office order dated 22.10.2014 under Annexure-7. Vide the said order, petitioner was dismissed from his services. It is found that pursuant to the liberty granted by this Court in W.P.C(OAC) No.3577 of 2014, petitioner preferred an appeal before O.P. No.1 under Annexure-8. But as found, the Appellate Authority-O.P. No.1 rejected the appeal vide order dated 01.07.2023 under Annexure-9. 6.2. This Court after going through the grounds of appeal taken by the petitioner under Annexure-8 vis-à- vis the order passed by the Appellate Authority under Annexure-9, is of the view that the appellate authority without giving any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and without assigning any reason has rejected the appeal by confirming the order of punishment passed by the disciplinary authority. 6.3. In view of such material irregularity which is apparent on the face of the record, this Court is inclined to quash order dated 01.07.2023 so passed by O.P. No.1 under Annexure-9. While quashing the said order, this Court remits the matter to O.P. No.1 to take a fresh decision by giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. This Court directs O.P. No.1 to take up the appeal and decide the same as directed within a period of 4 (four) months from the date of receipt of this order. In order to avoid delay, petitioner is permitted to provide a copy of this order before O.P. No.1 for compliance. 7. The Writ Petition stands disposed of. (Biraja Prasanna Satapathy) Judge Basudev