The court emphasized the necessity for strict adherence to disciplinary procedure as mandated by statutory provisions, establishing that non-compliance renders disciplinary actions invalid.

JUDGMENT :

BISWANATH RATH, J.

1. This Writ Petition was originally filed on the Board of the Orissa Administrative Tribunal, Bhubaneswar Bench. On abolition of the Tribunal, the Petition is transferred to this Court for being decided under the provision of Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India.

2. In filing this Petition, the Petitioner has challenged the procedure followed involving the penalty order by the Disciplinary Authority. The main thrust of argument involving the penalty 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 Sub-Rule (10) of the Rule-15 of the Orissa Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1962 before passing order of penalty, 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 have his view. It is urged that even assuming that the Enquiring Officer had suggested in favour of the Delinquent 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 him and calling the Delinquents to submit their response within a specified time.

3. Mr.Rath, learned counsel for the Petitioner thus challenged the impugned order for being contrary to the established principle. It is in the above background, taking this Court to Annexure-7, the enquiry report and Annexure-8, the show cause notice issued by the Disciplinary Authority, Mr.Rath, learned counsel for the Petitioner contended that there is gross-violation of the Rules governing the field and in the circumstance, particularly for non-compliance of the provision at (i)(b), the punishment order vitiates. With the above ground of challenge, learned counsel for the Petitioner also brings to the notice of this Court of the judgment of the Odisha Administrative Tribunal, Bhubaneswar involving one of the Delinquents involved in the same enquiry referring to Paragraphs-8 to 10 in the judgment dated 5.5.2018 involving O.A. No.1179/2008 submitted that the Tribunal in disposal of similar proceeding for the reasons therein not only quashed the impugned order of the like nature but also directed the Respondents therein to draw and dispose of the retiral benefits in favour of the Applicant held up on account of the impugned order within a period of three months. It is stated that there is no challenge to such order any further. It is in the above legal background, learned counsel for the Petitioner prayed this Court for setting aside the impugned order at Annexure-8 & 14 also granting some similar benefit.

4. To the contrary, Mr.S.K.Ghose, learned Additional Standing Counsel referring to the pleadings as well as disclosures contended that keeping in view the Disciplinary Authority’s disagreement with the order of the Enquiring Officer, there was calling for a report from the Engineer- in-Chief, Water Resources, and thus contended that the show cause notice in Annexure-8 even though nowhere disclosed the observation of the Disciplinary Authority dependent o