Court found the disciplinary action based on flawed inquiry lacking evidence, emphasizing the need for just proceedings in stated misconduct cases.

JUDGMENT :

A.K. Mohapatra, J.

1. The Petitioner has filed the present writ petition with a prayer to quash the order dated 30.8.2021 under Annexure-7 to the writ petition imposing punishment of “One Black Mark” on the Petitioner and the order dated 25.04.2022 passed by the Appellate Authority under Annexure- 9 to the writ petition as well as the order dated 19.07.2023 passed by the Revisional Authority under Annexure- 11 to the writ petition, which have upheld the order of punishment respectively. He has further prayed the Court to quash the Memorandum of Charge dated 25.04.2019 under Annexure- 1 to the writ petition and the Enquiry Report dated 24.04.2021 under Annexure-3 to the writ petition.

FACTUAL MATRIX

2. Before proceeding with the analysis of the grounds of challenge, it will be beneficial to discuss the brief factual background leading upto filing of the present writ application. The Petitioner was initially appointed as a Direct Recruitee Sub- Inspector of Police and was posted under Commissionerate of Police Bhubaneswar- Cuttack- Bhubaneswar. On 13.02.2019 he was transferred from the Headquarter and was posted as S.I. of police attached to Baranga Police Station, where one Sashikanta Rout was working as the Inspector- In- Charge (hereinafter „IIC‟). The Petitioner was made the Diary Charge Officer (hereinafter „DCO‟) for 22.03.2019 which lasted from 8:00 AM of 22.03.2019 to 8:00 AM of 23.03.2019, by the order of IIC, Baranga dated 21.03.2019.

3. The incident which led to initiation of departmental proceeding against the Petitioner occurred on 23.03.2019. The IIC, Baranga on reaching the Baranga, P.S. called the Petitioner, however, the Petitioner caused some delay in responding to such call. When the Petitioner appeared before the IIC, Baranga, it culminated into a verbal altercation between them, wherein, it was alleged that the Petitioner challenged the authority of the IIC in a high- pitched voice and used vulgar language towards the IIC, Baranga. Thereafter, IIC, Baranga reported the matter to the ACP, Zone- IV, Cuttack UPD, who went to Baranga, P.S. to conduct an enquiry into the allegation. ACP, Zone- IV, Cuttack UPD submitted his enquiry report dated 24.0.32019 to the Deputy Commissioner of Police, Cuttack UPD, confirming such allegation of insubordination, use of vulgar language and misconduct. Based on this report, departmental proceeding bearing Cuttack UPD Proceeding No. 23/2019 was initiated against the Petitioner by framing the charge of gross misconduct. The Petitioner submitted his explanation to the charge framed before the DCP, Cuttack UPD vide his letter dated 23.07.2019 under Annexure-2 to the writ petition, wherein he denied the allegations of misconduct, use of vulgar language and insubordination. However, finding the explanation unsatisfactory, enquiry was ordered by the DCP, Cuttack.

4. The Enquiry Officer after examining the 6 PWs and the relevant documents, submitted the Enquiry Report dated 24.04.2021 under Annexure-3 to the writ petition. It was stated in the report that the despite being called repeatedly by the IIC, Baranga to attend the grievance of two outsiders, the Petitioner deliberately did not respond to the call of IIC, Baranga. It was further stated that the Petitioner indulged in argument with the IIC, Baranga in high pitched voice and threatened the IIC, Baranga that he will see him at DCP, office and DGP, office. It was also reflected in the report that the Petitioner has used some vulgar language towards the IIC, Baranga. It was also stated in the report that conduct of the Petitioner amounts to infringement of Rule 3 & 4 of Oriss