Disciplinary action necessitates adherence to statutory rules, including providing a disagreement note when diverging from inquiry findings, as failure to do so violates principles of natural justice.

JUDGMENT :

Biraja Prasanna Satapathy, J

1. Heard Mr. A.K. Chhatoi, learned counsel for the Petitioner and Mr. M.K. Balabantaray, learned Addl. Govt. Advocate for the State.

2. Petitioner has filed the present Writ Petition inter alia challenging order dated 25.05.2018, so passed by Govt.-O.P. No.1 under Annexure-13. Vide the said order, while disposing the proceeding initiated against the petitioner vide Memorandum dated 25.03.2017, the following punishment was imposed:-

“i. Censure.

ii. Withholding of one annual increment with cumulative effect.

iii. The period of absence from 01.12.2010 to 04.12.2013 be treated as EOL.”

2.1. Learned counsel for the Petitioner contended that petitioner while in service, a proceeding in question was initiated against him on 25.03.2017 vide Annexure-6 inter alia with the following charges:-

“Article of Charges:-

Whereas, Dr. Narayan Prasad Behera, ADMO(M), Khordha has committed such gross irregularities as stated in the statement of imputations (Annexure-II).

Therefore, he is charged as under.

1. Unauthorized and willful absence from Govt. Duty.

2. Disobedience of the orders of higher authority.

3. Negligence in duty.

4. Misconduct.”

2.2. It is contended that petitioner not only filed his written statement of defence under Annexure-7 but also participated in the Enquiry so conducted by the Joint Director, Health Services (Leprosy), Odisha. It is contended that the Enquiry Officer after conducting the Enquiry submitted the Enquiry Report on 20.10.2017 inter alia with the following finding:-

“Basing on the Medical certificate issued by Prof and HoD, Neurology, SCB Medical College and Hospital, Cuttack on referral by Dr. L.D. Sahu, Orthopaedic Specialist, Capital Hospital, Bhubaneswar to consult Neurology, it is evident that Dr. Behera was suffering and under treatment. Hence, he was compelled to continue on leave due to his illness. Hence, it is suggested that Govt. may take lenient views to regularize the period of absence as leave.”

2.3. It is contended that the petitioner was issued with the 1^st show-cause as provided under Rule-15(10) of the OCS (CCA) Rules, 1962 on 07.11.2017 under Annexure-9 along with the report of the Enquiry Officer. Petitioner though submitted his reply under Annexure-10, but on the face of the finding of the Enquiry Officer and without giving a disagreement note assigning the reason for differing with the view of the Enquiry Officer, the 2nd show-cause was issued on 29.01.2018 under Annexure-11 proposing therein the following punishment:-

“ i. Censure.

ii. Withholding of one annual increment with cumulative effect.

iii. The period of absence from 01.12.2010 to 04.12.2013 be treated as EOL.”

2.4. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that since the Enquiry Officer while submitting the report held that petitioner during the period in question was under treatment and accordingly continued as leave and suggested to take a lenient view to regularize the period of absence as leave, but the Disciplinary Authority who happens to be the O.P. No.1, without giving a disagreement note as provided under Rule- 15(10) of the Rules proposed the punishment in question while issuing the 2nd show-cause under Annexure-11.

2.5. It is contended that since statutory provisions as contained under Rule-15(10) of the Rules was never followed by the Disciplinary Authority by giving a disagreement note while issuing the 2nd show-cause under Annexure-11, the impugned order passed by O.P. No.1 on 25.05.2018 under Annexure-13 is not sustainable in the eye of law.

2.6. In support of his submission learned counsel for the Petitioner relied on various decisions of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of:-

i) State of Andhra Pradesh & Ors. Vs. S. Sree Rama Rao reported in 1963 SCC On Lin