Research › Search › Judgment

Orissa High Court · body

2026 DAILYLAW 27178 (ORI)

Bikash Sethy v. State of Odisha

2026-01-22

Biraja Prasanna Satapathy

body2026
ORDER : BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY, J. 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 order dated 24.03.2023, so passed by the Opp. Party No.1 under Annexure-5, confirmed vide order dated 21.09.2023 under Annexure-7. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that while continuing under the State Govt., a proceeding was initiated against him under Rule-15 of OCS(CCA) Rules, 1962 (in short “Rules”) vide Memorandum dated 04.01.2021 under Annexure-1. It is contended that in the said proceeding, petitioner filed his written statement of defence on 13.07.2021. After such filing of the written statement of defence, Opp. Party No.1 vide office order dated 04.09.2021 under Annexure-C/2, appointed the A.D.M., Nabarangpur as the Enquiry Officer in terms of the provisions contained under Rule-15(4) of the aforesaid Rules. 4. 1. It is contended that after such appointment of the Enquiry Officer, petitioner vide order dated 18.11.2021 was issued with the notice by the Enquiry Officer fixing the date of appearance to 07.12.2021. Thereafter, vide another order passed on 04.02.2022, petitioner was directed to appear before the Enquiry Officer on 14.02.2022 and on the said date, petitioner duly appeared before the Enquiry Officer. 4. 2. It is contended that without causing any enquiry by giving due opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and without proving the charges in accordance with law, the enquiry was closed on 14.02.2022 with submission of the report vide letter dated 01.06.2022. It is contended that since the enquiry was not conducted in accordance with law and the enquiry was closed on 14.02.2022 i.e. on the date of appearance of the petitioner, petitioner could not get a chance to dispute the allegations made against him in the proceeding in question. 4. 3. However, basing on the Enquiry Report so submitted by the Enquiry Officer, petitioner was issued with the 1 st show-cause vide notice dated 11.07.2022 under Annexure-D/2 and thereafter the 2nd show- cause vide notice dated 13.01.2023 under Annexure- E/2, proposing therein to impose the following punishments: “(i) Censure. (ii) Withholding of one annual increment with cumulative effect. (iii) Period of unauthorised absence from duty on 22.05.2019 may be treated as EOL.” 4. 4. (ii) Withholding of one annual increment with cumulative effect. (iii) Period of unauthorised absence from duty on 22.05.2019 may be treated as EOL.” 4. 4. Petitioner though submitted reply to the 2 nd show- cause on 31.01.2023, but without proper appreciation of the same, petitioner was imposed with the punishment so proposed in the 2 nd show-cause vide the impugned order dated 24.03.2023 under Annexure-5 by Opp. Party No.1. It is contended that petitioner though preferred an appeal before the Hon’ble Governor under Annexure-6, but the same was also rejected vide order dated 21.09.2023 under Annexure-7. 4. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended that since the enquiry was never conducted in accordance with law and the same was conducted and concluded on a single day i.e. 14.02.2022, basing on the report so submitted by the Enquiry Officer, petitioner could not have been issued with the show-cause proposing the punishment which was ultimately imposed on him vide order under Annexure-5, confirmed vide order under Annexure-7. 4. 6. It is accordingly contended that the impugned order of punishment so passed against the petitioner, is required to be interfered with. In support of his submission, reliance was placed to a decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Satyendra Singh Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Anr. , Hon’ble Apex Court in the said judgment in Para-17 has held as follows:- “17. Thus, even in an ex-parte inquiry, it is sine qua non to record the evidence of the witnesses for proving the charges. Having tested the facts of the case at hand on the touchstone of the Rules of 1999, and the law as expounded by this Court in the cases of Roop Singh Negi 15 and Nirmala J. Jhala 16 , we are of the firm view that the inquiry proceedings conducted against the appellant pertaining to charges punishable with major penalty, were totally vitiated and non-est in the eyes of law since no oral evidence whatsoever was recorded by the department in support of the charges.” 5. Learned Addl. Govt. Advocate on the other hand while supporting the impugned order of punishment made his submission basing on the stand taken in the counter affidavit so filed by Opp. Party No.2. Learned Addl. Govt. Advocate on the other hand while supporting the impugned order of punishment made his submission basing on the stand taken in the counter affidavit so filed by Opp. Party No.2. It is contended that petitioner during his incumbency as Executive Officer, Jagatsinghpur Municipality, he availed 2 (two) advances, which was not permissible and while continuing as Assistant Collector in Collectorate, Nabarangpur, he remained absent from Election duty on 22.05.2019. 5. 1. It is contended that since petitioner never attended the Election duty on 22.05.2019, the same amounts to a major mis-conduct and even though enquiry was completed on a single day, but taking into account the conduct of the petitioner in not attending the Election duty, no illegality or irregularity can be found with the impugned order of punishment so passed against him. Stand taken in Para-15 of the Counter affidavit reads as follows:- “15. That in reply to the averments made in Para-13 csv of the Writ Petition, it is humbly submitted that; the petitioner during his incumbency as Assistant Collector, Collectorate, Nabarangpur was assigned with Election duty to record result trend in respect of 75-Nabarangpur (ST) AC during SGE 2019.He was directed to remain present at Model Degree College, Nabarangpur on 22.05.2019 for review of counting arrangement, mock rehearsal in the counting hall taken up by the Counting Observer. However, during the visit of the Counting Observer at 9.30 A.M on 22.05.2019, the petitioner was found absent. Again on 22.05.2019 at 4.30 PM during the mock rehearsal, he was found absent. For such negligence on the part of the D.O, the counting observer requested Collector, Nabarangpur to call explanation from the petitioner and to take appropriate action as per service/Election Rules. The petitioner was called for an explanation and the petitioner in his written explanation dated 25.05.2019, has admitted that he was not present till 5.30 P.M as his spectacle was broken, but has not submitted any proof in support of his explanation. Further, as regards acquittance register obtained by the petitioner, it is found that, the petitioner has not signed in the Signature column which raised a question. From the above scenario It reveals that the petitioner shown his utter carelessness and committed irregularity by wav of remaining unauthorized absent from the duties vested upon him.” 6. To the submission made by the learned Addl. Govt. From the above scenario It reveals that the petitioner shown his utter carelessness and committed irregularity by wav of remaining unauthorized absent from the duties vested upon him.” 6. To the submission made by the learned Addl. Govt. Advocate, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that petitioner was very much present on his Election duty and he has put his signature in the attendance register. But on the face of the application being made by the petitioner, such attendance register was never called for. It is accordingly contended that without any proof that petitioner remained absent from election duty, the order of punishment could not have been imposed on him. 7. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and considering the submissions made, this Court finds that while in service, the proceeding in question was initiated against the petitioner vide Memorandum dated 04.01.2021 under Annexure-1. As found from the record, petitioner after receipt of the Memorandum, filed his written statement of defence on 13.07.2021 under Annexure-B/2. There is no document available in the record showing any application made by the petitioner asking for any document to file his written statement of defence and the same was filed suo-moto basing on the charges framed against him. 7. 1. It is however found that, after receipt of the written statement of defence so filed by the petitioner on 13.07.2021, the enquiry officer was appointed vide office order dated 04.09.2021 under Annexure-C/2. After such appointment of the Enquiry Officer, petitioner was noticed to appear before the Enquiry Officer on 14.02.2022 vide order dated 04.02.2022 as found from Annexure-C/3. 7. 2. It is found that on 14.02.2022, the Enquiry Officer without causing any enquiry and without proving the allegation against the petitioner basing on the charges framed in the Memorandum by oral and documentary evidence, closed the enquiry on the said date and submitted the Enquiry Report on 01.06.2022 by holding the petitioner guilty of the charges. Basing on such Enquiry Report submitted by the Enquiry Officer on 01.06.2022, petitioner was issued with the 1st show-cause on 11.07.2022 under Annexure-D/2 and 2 nd show-cause on 13.01.2023 under Annexure-E/2. 7. 3. Basing on such Enquiry Report submitted by the Enquiry Officer on 01.06.2022, petitioner was issued with the 1st show-cause on 11.07.2022 under Annexure-D/2 and 2 nd show-cause on 13.01.2023 under Annexure-E/2. 7. 3. As found, petitioner though submitted a detailed reply to the 1 st and 2 nd show cause, but without considering the same, the proceeding was disposed of with imposition of the punishment so proposed in the 2 nd show-cause vide order dated 24.03.2023 under Annexure-5. Petitioner though filed an appeal before the Hon’ble Governor, but the same was also rejected vide order dated 21.09.2023 under Annexure-7. 7. 4. This Court after going through the records, finds that after appointment of the Enquiry Officer vide order dated 04.09.2021, though enquiry was fixed to 14.02.2022 vide order dated 04.02.2022 for the 1 st time, but on the very same date, enquiry was completed and the report was submitted on 01.06.2021. Since the enquiry has not been conducted in accordance with law and allegations made in the Memorandum were never proved with examination of the prosecution witnesses and proof of the documents so relied on by the prosecution, it is the view of this Court that, the punishment imposed basing on such enquiry report is vitiated. 7. 5. In view of the aforesaid analysis, this Court is inclined to quash the order of punishment passed against the petitioner under Annexure-5 so confirmed vide order under Annexure-7. While quashing both the orders, this Court remits the matter to the stage of Enquiry and directs Opp. Party No.1 to appoint a fresh Enquiry Officer and decide the proceeding in accordance with law in which this Court expresses no opinion. 7. 6. The decision relied on by the learned counsel for the petitioner in case of Satyendra Singh so cited (supra) as per the considered view of this Court is not applicable to the facts of the present case as in the case in hand, the proceeding is of the year 2020 and this Court taking into account the fact that no enquiry was conducted, while quashing the order of punishment is remitting the matter for fresh disposal in accordance with law. 8. The Writ Petition accordingly stands disposed of.