SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2022 Supreme(Ori) 349

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
K.R. Mohapatra, J.
Shri Prasanna Kumar Das - Petitioner
Versus
State of Orissa and others - Opposite Parties
WPC (OA) No.1033 of 2008
Decided On : 30-06-2022

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Mr. Ajit Rath, Mr. R. Rath, Mr. R. Mohanty and Mr. D.K. Mitra
For the Opposite Parties : Mr. P.C. Das, Addl. Standing Counsel

Non-compliance with statutory provisions renders show cause notice and punishment order unsustainable in law.

Headnote:

Disciplinary Proceeding - Orissa Civil Services (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules - Rule 15(10) - The court found that the show cause notice and the punishment order were unsustainable in law due to non-compliance with the statutory provisions. The court set aside the orders and directed the disciplinary authority to treat the petitioner as continuing in service, calculate all consequential benefits, release the arrear dues, and award interest at 5% per annum.

Fact of the Case:

The petitioner, a Junior Engineer, faced a departmental proceeding and punishment for alleged violations in a construction project. The petitioner challenged the procedure followed and the punishment order, alleging violation of the Orissa Civil Services (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 1962 and principles of natural justice.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the show cause notice and the punishment order were unsustainable in law due to non-compliance with the statutory provisions. The court set aside the orders and directed the disciplinary authority to treat the petitioner as continuing in service, calculate all consequential benefits, release the arrear dues, and award interest at 5% per annum.

Issues: Violation of the Orissa Civil Services (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 1962 and principles of natural justice in the disciplinary proceeding and punishment order.

Ratio Decidendi: Non-compliance with the statutory provisions of Rule 15(10) of the Orissa Civil Services (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 1962 rendered the show cause notice and the punishment order unsustainable in law.

Final Decision: The court set aside the show cause notice and the punishment order, directed the disciplinary authority to treat the petitioner as continuing in service, calculate all consequential benefits, release the arrear dues, and award interest at 5% per annum.

JUDGMENT :

A.K. Mohapatra, J.

1. Initially the applicant-petitioner approached the Orissa Administrative Tribunal, Bhubaneswar Bench by filing an Original Application. On abolition of the Tribunal, the Original Application has been transferred to this Court and registered as WPC(O.A.). Since the pleadings are complete from both sides, the matter is being taken up for final hearing today.

2. Heard Mr. Ajit Rath, learned counsel for the Petitioner and Mr. P.C. Das, learned Additional Standing Counsel for the State. None appears for the OPSC-Opposite Party No.3 despite valid service of notice.

3. The brief facts of the case, in a nutshell, is that the Petitioner who is working as a Junior Engineer (Civil), Anandapur Barrage Sub-Division, Section No.III Agarpada in the district of Bhadrak under Executive Engineer, Baitarani Division, Salapada, Keonjhar, faced a departmental proceeding No.25467, dated 18.07.2002, drawn up jointly along with four others which includes three Junior Engineers and one Assistant Engineer in Class-II Gazetted rank, in connection with the work of improvement to the Soso Branch canal Road of Anandapur Barrage Project from RD.00 K.M. to 18.70 K.M. under Anandapur Barrage Sub-Division, which work was one of the works executed under the Agreement bearing No.51 F-2/97-98 and which was to commence on 20.08.1997 to be completed within a period of eleven calendar months, subsequently extended till 18.6.1999. In the said proceeding, the Petitioenr was found guilty and punishment was imposed by the Department of Water Resources as per the Order of the Hon’ble Governor bearing No.396 dated 25.04.2008, directing recovery of Rs.12,57,800/-from him. The proceeding and the punishment being in violation of the provisions of the Orissa Civil Services (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 1962 as well as the principles of natural justice and being arbitrary and discriminatory are under challenge in the present writ petition.

4. In filing this Petition, the Petitioner has challenged the procedure followed involving the punishment order by the Disciplinary Authority. The main thrust of the argument involving the punishment order by the Disciplinary Authority remains, when the Enquiring Officer on completion of enquiry suggests exemption of the Delinquents including the Petitioner from the charges if the Disciplinary Authority wants to differ from the view of the Enquiring Officer following the provision in the Orissa Civil Services (Classification, Control & Appeal) Amendment Rules, 2000, particularly keeping in view the Sub-Rule (10) of the Rule-15 of the Orissa Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1962 before passing order of punishment, it was incumbent upon the Disciplinary Authority to first send a show cause notice along with report of the Enquiring Officer asking the Delinquent to submit his views. It is urged that even assuming that the Enquiring Officer had suggested in favour of the Delinquents and such contingency was not available and the Disciplinary Authority desired to differ from the view of the Enquiring Officer, the Disciplinary Authority was required to issue a show cause notice on punishment along with a statement of its finding taken together with brief reasons of disagreement, if any, with the findings of the Enquiring Officer stating penalty proposed to be imposed on them and calling the Delinquents to submit their response within a specific period of time.

5. Mr. Ajit Rath, learned counsel for the Petitioner while refuting the allegations made in the show-cause notice has submitted that Petitioner as a Junior Engineer along with four Assistant Engineers and three other Junior Engineers have executed the work namely ‘Improvement to the SOSO Branch Canal of Anandpur Barrage Project, RD 00 K.M. (RD for Reduced Distance) to 18.70 K.M. under AIBP (Accelerated Irrigation Benefit Programme) Assistance Scheme’. The charge is based on the inspection by S.E. Vigilance Technical Wing on dt.12

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top