Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack

Date: 26-Nov-2025 17:39:23

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

W.P.(C) No.38767 of 2020

(In the matter of an application under Articles 226 and 227 of the

Constitution of India)

Smt. Ambika Mishra and another …. Petitioners

-versus-

State of Odisha and others …. Opposite Parties

Advocate(s) appeared in this case:-

For Petitioners : Mr. B. Mohanty, Advocate

For Opposite Parties : Mr. G. Tripathy, A.G.A.

CORAM: JUSTICE B.P. ROUTRAY

JUDGMENT

19^th November 2025

B.P. Routray, J.

1. Heard Mr. B. Mohanty, learned Advocate for the Petitioners and Mr. G. Tripathy, learned Additional Government Advocate for the

State-Opposite Parties.

2. Present Petitioners are substituted for the original Petitioner, upon his death during pendency of the writ petition, being his wife and son. The original Petitioner, namely, Bibhuti Bhusan Mishra while serving as Statistical Investigator in the Office of the District Education Officer, Puri was charged for mis-conduct vide charge-sheet dated 20^th

Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Date: 26-Nov-2025 17:39:23 July 2016. The charge against him was that, (i) negligence on duty, (ii) suppression of facts. Being not satisfied with the reply of the Petitioner-Delinquent Officer, the disciplinary authority appointed the Inquiring Officer vide order dated 16.09.2016. The Inquiring Officer was the Additional District Education Officer, Puri, who upon completion of enquiry submitted the enquiry report dated 03.03.2017 with the finding that the Delinquent Officer (original Petitioner) has manipulated the records and achieved his goal by suppression of fact to the higher authority. With such finding of the Inquiring Officer, the disciplinary authority accepted the enquiry report and imposed the punishment vide order dated 25.09.2017, Viz. stoppage of two annual increments without cumulative effect and secondly, to treat the period of suspension from 14.03.2016 to 01.09.2017 as such.

3. The original Petitioner challenged punishment order dated 25.09.2017 imposed by the disciplinary authority before the appellate authority, who is the Director of Secondary Education. The appellate authority vide his order dated 31.12.2018 dismissed the appeal confirming the order of the disciplinary authority. The original Petitioner then preferred W.P.(C) No.1166 of 2020 and this Court (in coordinate Bench) vide order dated 22.01.2020 remanded the matter Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Date: 26-Nov-2025 17:39:23 back to the appellate authority to reconsider the appeal afresh taking into all such grounds discussed in said order of this Court. But the appellate authority upon reconsideration of the appeal has again confirmed the order of the disciplinary authority imposing punishment on the Petitioner reiterating the observations held by him in his earlier order dated 31.12.2018.

4. The original Petitioner then filed present writ petition challenging the orders of the appellate authority as well as the order of the disciplinary authority including the charge memo.

5. Mr. B. Mohnaty, learned counsel for the Petitioners submits that the very foundation of the charge is illegal as the charge memo did not contain the statement of allegations and the proposed evidences. He further submits that the Inquiring Officer without examining any document or taking any oral evidence has simply concluded the guilt of the delinquent in his one-page enquiry report and the same was accepted by the disciplinary authority in further violation of sub-rule 10(i)(b) of Rule 15 of the OCS (CCA) Rules, 1962. It is thus submitted by Mr. Mohanty, learned counsel for the Petitioners that, the very charge being unfounded and suffering from foundational defects Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Date: 26-Nov-2025 17:39:23 including violation of procedure by the Inquiring Officer as well as the disciplinary authority, not only the punishment but also the very charge is liable to set aside. It is further submitted that the appe