IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

W.P.(C)(OAC) No.3106 of 2018

Dr. Satyapriya Dash

….

Petitioner

-versus-

State of Odisha & Ors.

….

Opposite Parties

CORAM:

JUSTICE BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY

Order No

ORDER

18.01.2023

07.

1.This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement

(Virtual/Physical) Mode.

2. The present writ petition has been filed by the Petitioner

challenging the order of punishment passed by the Govt.-O.P. No. 1

on 07.05.2021 vide Annexure-14.

3. The facts giving rise to filing of the present writ petition is that

the Petitioner while continuing as an ADVO (D.C.) at Malkanagir,

he was placed under suspension vide order dtd.29.01.2018 under

Annexure-1 and subsequently a proceeding was initiated against

him under Rule 15 of the OCS (CCA) Rules, 1962 vide

Memorandum dtd.28.06.2018 under Annexure-7. The following

charges are framed against the Petitioner in the said proceeding:-

“1. Unauthorized absence from duty.

2. Misbehavior to higher authority.

3. Negligence in duty.

4. Violation of Government Conduct Rules.

5. Gross Misconduct.”

3.1. After receipt of the charges the Petitioner submitted his written

state of defence and thereafter the Enquiry Officer proceeded with

the enquiry. The Enquiry Officer after completion of the enquiry

submitted the report vide letter dtd.21.01.2020 under Annexure-9.

// 2 //

Page 2 of 7

The finding of the Enquiry Officer as reflected in the report is

quoted hereunder:-

“From the recorded evidence as well as the statement of

witness during the enquiry process it was revealed that the

allegations made against Dr. S.P. Dash, Ex-ADVO (DC),

Malkanagiri could not be clearly ascertained/proved.”

3.2. The O.P. No. 1 after receipt of the enquiry report issued the 1^st

show-cause by enclosing a copy of the enquiry report and the

petitioner submitted his representation on 10.06.2020 vide

Annexure-10 inter alia indicating therein that the Petitioner accept

the enquiry report and accordingly prayed for disposal of the

proceeding. But thereafter, without considering the case of the

Petitioner in its proper perspective, O.P. No. 1 issued the 2^nd show-

cause on 23.02.2021 under Annexure-12 by proposing to impose

the following punishment:-

“1. Withholding of one increment without cumulative effect.

2. The period of suspension be traeted as such.”

3.3. The Petitioner though submitted his reply to the said show-

cause, but the O.P. No. 1 without proper appreciation of the

grounds taken by the Petitioner, passed the impugned order of

punishment on 07.05.2021 under Annexure-14.

4. Dr. J.K. Lenka, learned counsel for the Petitioner contended that

since the proceeding was initiated under Rule 15 of the OCS (CCA)

Rule, 1962 and the Enquiry Officer while submitting the report, did

not found anything against the Petitioner, the O.P. No. 1 while

issuing the 2^nd show-cause, should have issued the disagreement

note and the reason for disagreeing with the finding of the Enquiry

Officer. It is contended that the same having not been followed,

// 3 //

Page 3 of 7

which violates Rule 15 of the OCS (CCA) Rules, 1962, the order of

punishment passed against him under Annexure-14 is not

sustainable in the eye of law.

4.1. Dr. Lenka in support of his aforesaid submission relied of 2

(two) decisions of the Hon’ble Apex Court reported in the case of

Punjab National Bank & Ors. The Chief Personnel Vs. Sh. Kunj

Behari Mishra, Sh. Shanti Prasad Goel (Civil Appeal No. 7433 of

1995) and another decision reported in the case of Allahabad Bank

& Ors. Vs. Krishna Narayan Tewari (Civil Appeal No. 7600 of

2014).

4.2. Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Punjab National Bank has

held as follows:-

“The result of the aforesaid discussion would be that the

principles of natural justice have to be read into Regulation

7(2). As a result, thereof whenever the disciplinary

authority disagrees w