Failure to issue a second show-cause notice as required by Rule 15(10)(i)(b) invalidates the disciplinary punishment, emphasizing adherence to procedural fairness.

JUDGMENT :

Biraja Prasanna Satapathy, J.

1. This matter is taken up through hybrid mode.

2. Heard Mr. K.C. Sahu, learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner and Mr. S. Das, learned Addl. Standing Counsel appearing for the Opp. Parties.

3. The present writ petition has been filed inter alia challenging the order of punishment passed by the disciplinary authority-Opp. Party No. 2 vide order dtd.22.05.2008 under Annexure-12 and the order passed by the appellate authority- Opp. Party No. 1 in confirming the punishment vide order dtd.23.07.2010 under Annexure-13.

4. It is contended that in the proceeding initiated against the Petitioner vide Memorandum dtd.29.07.1993, Petitioner was imposed with the punishment by the disciplinary authority-Opp. Party No. 2 vide order under Annexure-12, further confirmed by the appellate authority-Opp. Party No. 1 vide order dtd.23.07.2010 under Annexure-13. While assailing the order of punishment so passed under Annxure-12 and confirmed vide order under Annexure-13, learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner contended that in the proceeding in question, the enquiry officer after conducting de novo enquiry submitted the report on 26.09.2002 under Annexure-10. After receipt of the report from the enquiry officer Petitioner was issued with the 1^st show-cause in terms of the provisions contained under Rule 15(10)(i)(a) of the OCS (CCA) Rules, 1962. Finding of the Enquiry Officer reads as follows:-

“After proper application of mind and statement recorded from Smt. D. Umakumari, the Enquiring Officer arrives on the following conclusion.

1. That Sri L.K. Mohapatra has deliberately avoid to attend the enquiry 3rd times 1.c. on 14.7.95. 24.11.2000 and 23.9.2002.

2. That, thrice, the Govt. money towards expenditure on P.O.L., D.A. of three Enquiring Officer & Presenting Officer & other related expenditure occurred unnecessarily.

3. That Sri L.K. Mohapatra has some other intention to avoid this type of enquiry.

4. That Smt. P. Umakumari is a innocent lady who is facing a lot of problems from the date of her husband death.

5. That the charges framed against Sri L.K. Mohapatra Sr. Clerk of D.A.O. Boudh relating to cheating of Rs.10,000/- and Rs.2,500/- is established.

6. That suitable decision may please be taken to decide the proceeding case of Sri L.K. Mohapatra with no longer time.”

4.1. It is contended that after issuance of such a 1^st show-cause vide notice dtd.30.01.2003 under Annexure-11, no 2^nd show-cause was issued proposing the punishment in terms of the provisions contained under Rule 15(10)(i)(b) of the Rules. Rule 15(10)(i)(b) of the Rules reads as follows:-

“15. Procedure for imposing penalties-

15(10)(i)(b) On receipt of the representation referred to in Sub-clause (a) the disciplinary authority having regard to the findings on the charges, is of the opinion that any of the penalties specified in Clauses (vi) to (ix) should be imposed, he shall furnish to the delinquent Government servant a statement of its findings along with brief reasons for disagreement, if any, with the findings of the inquiring officer and give him a notice by Registered Post or otherwise stating the penalty proposed to be imposed o him and calling upon him to submit within a specified time such representation as he may wish to make against the proposed penalty:

Provided that in every case in which it is necessary to consult the Commission under the provision of the Constitution of India and the Orissa Public Service Commission (Limitation of Functions) Regulation, 1989 the record of Inquiry together with a copy of the notice given under Sub-clause (a) and the represe