IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
Biraja Prasanna Satapathy, J.
Chhabi Behera - Petitioner
Versus
State of Odisha & Others - Opposite Parties
W.P.(C) No.37227 of 2023
Decided On : 25-02-2026
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. writ petition filed for quashing an order and releasing pension. (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. court's analysis on the validity of the inquiry process. (Para 5 , 6 , 7) |
| 3. cancellation of the impugned order and directive for retiral benefits release. (Para 8) |
JUDGMENT :
Biraja Prasanna Satapathy, J.
1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual/Physical) Mode.
2. Heard learned counsel appearing for the Parties.
3. The present Writ Petition has been filed inter alia with the following prayer:-
“Under the aforesaid facts and circumstances the petitioner humbly prays that this Hon’ble Court may graciously be pleased to,
1. Quash the impugned order dtd.23.05.2018 as at Annexure-6.
2. Direct/order that the pension and gratuity shall be released in favour of the petitioner within a stipulated period with admissible interest thereon.
3. Pass such other order(s) / direction(s) as may be deemed fit and proper in the bona fide interest of justice”.
4. It is contended that Petitioner while in service, the proceeding under Rule-15 of the OCS (CCA) Rules, 1962 (in short ‘Rules’) was initiated against him vide Memorandum dtd.06.05.2003 under Annexure-1 with the following charges:-
ANNEXURE-I
“Article of Charges:- During the incumbency of Sri Chhabi Behera as COD, Nuapada, it is revealed from the report of the Collector, Nuapada and aporoved special aduit report on the accounts of Sri Nrusingha Charan Jena, Ex-M.I. of Sinapali Block of Nuapda District Departmental Storage Centre, Sinapli for the period from September, 2001 to August 2002, that Sri Nrusingha Charan Jena, Marketing Inspector, Sinapali Block have misappropriated Q.14661.50 of B.P.L. rice Q.1434.87 of Levy Sugar Q.201.30 of Annapurna rice and Q.2462.25 of Antyodaya Anna Yojana rice amount to Rs.15316241.85. Thus he is charged with negligence in duty and lack of supervision.
ANNEXURE-II
Statement of Imputation of charges
Charge No.1 That during his incumbency of CSO-cum- D.M. OSCSC Ltd.. Nuapada for the Period from 18.12.2001 to 18.7.2002 he did not submit tour programme of tour diary regarding his toura. But on verification of the log book of the office jeep it is seen that he has visited Sinapali Block six times on dated 13.2.2002. 21.3.2002. 31.3.2002, 3.4.2002, 2.5.2002, and 13,6,2002, but he has never submitted any report or compliance regarding his visit and supervision of PDS in Sinapalli. He has also not appraised his higher authority regarding the function-ing of PDS in Sinapali nlock, as he has not submitted his tour diaries, the very purpose of visiting Sinapali Block by office Jeep does not serve the interest of public.
He has mis-utilised the office vehicle for unproductive works in abuse of powers, supervising negligence failure the detect and prevent misappropriation of FDS stock by M.I.
Charge No.2 The during his incumbency as c.5.0.-cum- D.M..OSCSC Ltd.. Nuapada Sri N.C. Jena, M.I. Sinapali got wide scope to misappropriate Q.14661.30 of BPL rice Q.1434.02 of levy Sugar. 4.201.30 of Annapurna rice Q.2462.25 Antyodaya Yojana ’rice amounting 3.15316241.85 dụe to his negligence and lack of super- vision. As CSO-cum-D.M. he has never tried to review and supervise the working of PDS in Sinapali Block for months together. Because of his negligence in duty Sri Jena Ex-M. I. continued his nefarious activities unbatedly and misappropriated essential commodities causing dislocation of the PDS in entire Sinapali Block.
This shows his gross supervisory negligence in discharging Government duties.
Charge No.3
That, the Collector Nuapada has passed marginal order on the report of the Sub-Collector, Nuapada to ask the Sub-Collector, Nuapada to submit the draft charges against Sri N.C. Jena, M.I., Sinapali Block and he has perused the letter on 11.6.2002. But being a responsible Government servant he did not by their to take any action in the matter. It tentamounts to disobedience of orders of higher authority, in contravention of rule-4, of Government servant conduct Rules 1
AI
Disciplinary action requires compliance with procedural rules; failure to conduct an enquiry renders the imposition of penalties invalid.
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.
Disciplinary proceedings against a retired government servant must comply with statutory requirements, including issuing a second show-cause notice and following appropriate rules for post-retirement....
Disciplinary proceedings quashed for defective charge memo without imputations, documents, witnesses; no departmental evidence or witnesses; perfunctory enquiry report lacking independent reasons and....
The court emphasized that a disciplinary order must provide clear reasoning; failing this, the order is unsustainable and violates principles of natural justice.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.