p. 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK WA No.449 of 2026 Prakash Chandra Sahoo … Appellant Mr. Asok Mohanty, Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Gouri Mohan Rath, Advocate -Versus- Food Corporation of India and others … Respondents Mr. Debasish Nayak, Advocate CORAM: THE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE AND THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE MURAHARI SRI RAMAN Order No. ORDER 30.03.2026 02. 1. Despite having emerged successful in getting an order of the authority reverting the appellant to its feeder post from the promotional post, the instant writ appeal is filed assailing the said order on the premise that affording an opportunity of hearing could be an idle exercise as the authorities have already taken a decision and such hearing would be conducted with the predetermined mind. 2. In order to appreciate the said stand taken by the appellant, the facts as narrated hereinabove, leave no ambiguity to the effect that the authorities have acted in a blatant violation of the principles of natural justice in the garb of rectifying the mistake, which was highlighted by the Single Bench in the impugned order. Even if the mistake ordinarily does not confer any inchoate or a vested right as the same is amenable to be rectified and/or redressed, yet an opportunity of hearing must be afforded unless the same is apparent and undisputed on the face of the record. p. 2 3. The aforesaid proposition of law can be fortified from the judgment of the Apex Court rendered in Union of India and others vs. Bikash Kumar, (2006) 8 SCC 192, wherein it has been held as follows:- “12. The matter relating to appointment or recruitment of EDDA is not governed by any statute but by departmental instructions. It is now trite that if a mistake is committed in passing an administrative order, the same may be rectified. Rectification of a mistake, however, may in a given situation require compliance with the principles of natural justice. It is only in a case where the mistake is apparent on the face of the record, a rectification thereof is permissible without giving any hearing to the aggrieved party.” 4. A point is sought to be raised before this Court by the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellant that if the authorities have already taken a decision, the post-decisional hearing is never contemplated in law and placed reliance upon a judgment of the Apex Court in Shekhar Ghosh Vs. Union of India and another, (2007) 1 SCC 331. The ratio of the said judgment is to be culled out from the given facts and the context in which the same is used. The decision is what is decided on the basis of given facts. In the said case, a serious allegation of taking of bribe was made and taking a plea of mistake, the decision was taken by the authority without contemplating any disciplinary proceeding nor by framing the charges nor examining the witnesses nor any enquiry was contemplated on the charges of the misconduct framed against the petitioner therein. The Court further found that the order passed by the Senior Divisional p. 3 Officer, Kota demonstrates that the same was done without holding any enquiry and, thereafter, directed the repatriation. After having passed the said order, notice for personal hearing was issued and in the backdrop of the same, it was held that once a decision has already been taken, in such event mere giving a personal hearing would yield no fruitful purpose and will be only a farcical exercise. 5. It is not a case of any serious allegation having made against the petitioner therein and it is not that any disciplinary proceeding is sought to be initiated on a serious charges against him. It is a case of rectification of a mistake and to redress the same. 6. We, thus, do not find that the decision taken by the authority, which was quashed and set aside by the Single Bench, would create any impact at the time of giving a fair and meaningful opportunity of hearing to the appellant nor will stand on the way taking an independent and impartial decision. A confusion has arisen at the time of hearing as to whether a person, who has issued the notice for personal hearing, is a competent authority or not. 7. By way of an Interlocutory Application, a letter dated 27th March, 2026 issued by the Assistant General Manager (Personnel) is annexed, which according to the learned Senior Counsel for the appellant, is not the competent authority to take a conscious decision. 8. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents submits that there is an ample indication giving in the said notice that though the notice was issued by the said authority, the hearing would be conducted by the Executive Director (East), which is otherwise p. 4 the competent authority. The competence of the said authority is not disputed by the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellant. Since the hearing would be conducted by the Executive Director (East), we do not find that there could be any confusion in the mind of the appellant. 9. Taking the overall view, we do not find any ground warranting interference with the impugned order. 10. It goes without saying that, it is open to the appellant to take all plea available to him and if taken, the authority shall consider it in a fair manner and will record its finding in the decision in lucid and explicit manner. 11. The writ appeal is disposed of in view of the observations made hereinabove. As a result of disposal of the writ appeal, all pending Interlocutory Application (s), if any, shall stand disposed of. (Harish Tandon) Chief Justice (M.S. Raman) Judge MRS/Laxmikant Designation: SENIOR STENOGRAPHER