The imposition of penalties in disciplinary proceedings must adhere to procedural fairness, with respect to evidence and proportionality, ensuring just treatment in accordance with established rules.

JUDGMENT :

R.K. PATTANAIK, J.

1. Instant writ petition is filed by the petitioner challenging the impugned order at Annnexure-1 dated 21^st December, 2020 of opposite party No.2 communicated to him vide D.O. No.4 dated 1^st January, 2021 followed by Annexure-12, whereby, he has been inflicted with punishment of one black mark on the grounds inter alia that the action initiated with the decisions followed is unjustified, arbitrary and hence, liable to be interfered with in the interest of justice.

2. As pleaded on record, the petitioner appeared the competitive examination for the post of SI of Police in the year 2008 and received appointment in 2010 and on completion of training by him, joined in service at Jenapur PS in the district of Jajpur under opposite party No.3 and was thereafter, transferred and attached to the DIB, Jajpur in 2019 and while continuing as such, was issued with a show cause on 10^th September, 2019 as per Annexure-2 seeking explanation as to why he did not attend the crime meeting held on 7^th September, 2019, in response to which, explanation was submitted to opposite party No.3. It is further pleaded that upon receiving the explanation i.e. Annexure-2, opposite party No.3 was not satisfied and as a result, initiated the disciplinary proceeding, in which, he was supplied the memorandum of charge and evidence alleging gross misconduct, dereliction in duty and disobedience of order and was directed to submit a reply by 18^th October, 2019. According to the petitioner, in response to the memo of charge and evidence as at Annexures-3 and 4 and followed by the explanation i.e. Annexure-5, opposite party No.3 was not satisfied and proceeded against him and entrusted the enquiry to one Mr.J.R. Satpathy OPS-I with Sri C. Behera, SI of Police appointed as the Marshalling Officer and therein, the written defence was filed and in course of such enquiry, witnesses stood examined and documents were received as evidence and at last, the report was submitted on 17^th January, 2020 finding him guilty for the charges levelled as per Annexure-7, whereafter, opposite party No.3 issued 1^st show cause notice i.e. Annexure-8 and it was responded by a reply but ultimately, with the 2^nd show cause notice issued received vide Memo No.358 dated 20^th February, 2020, the punishment was proposed and though such show cause reply was submitted as per Annexure-11 but in a mechanical manner, the impugned order i.e. Annexure-20 was passed, to which, an appeal was carried before opposite party No.2 as per Annexure-13 series and since there was delay in disposal of the same, he filed W.P.(C) No.18471 of 2020 and pursuant to the order dated 3^rd September, 2020 i.e. Annexure-14 therein, hearing in the appeal was concluded and it was followed by the impugned order i.e. Annexure-1 confirming the order of opposite party No.3 vide Annexure-12.

3. The grounds of challenge are that (i) the impugned decision of opposite party No.2 as per Annexure-1 is not based on materials on record and there is non-application of judicial mind, hence, the same is liable to be quashed; (ii) the punishment awarded on the allegation of misconduct etc. is a pre-conceived one because the petitioner was neither directed to appear nor received any prior intimation about the crime meeting held on 7^th September, 2019 and the said fact was not taken into consideration by opposite party No.2; (iii) the petitioner submitted the reply to the 1^st show cause and hence, the claim of the opposite parties is incorrect, inasmuch as, the 2^nd show cause notice is consequential to t