Allowed

Narendra Ch.Behera v. O.F.D.C.Ltd.

Orissa HC4 Dec 2019WP(C)/7289/2005

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court set aside the disciplinary authority and appellate authority orders for non-compliance with statutory procedure. The inquiry report concluded the petitioner could not be held responsible, yet punishment was recommended; the appellate authority also failed to address these defects.

What did the court decide?

Sought to set aside the impugned orders at Annexures-8 and 10 and this Court set aside both.

Narendra Ch.Behera Vs O.F.D.C.Ltd. — Service and Employment | Orissa HC (2019)

¶1

C.M.P. No.1360 of 2015 W.P.(C).No.7289 of 2005

¶2

12 04.12.2019

¶3

Heard Sri Panda, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel appearing for the contesting opposite party no.1.

¶4

This writ petition involves a challenge to the order of punishment of the Disciplinary Authority as well as the rejection of the appeal at the instance of the petitioner.

¶5

Short background involved herein is that for causing loss to the Corporation, the petitioner-delinquent has been charged with direction for facing a disciplinary proceeding involving loss to the Orissa Forest Development Corporation to the tune of Rs.55,490/more particularly for the shortage of timber and firewood. Dissatisfied with the explanation submitted by the delinquentpetitioner, Inquiry Officer was appointed and petitioner was directed to face the disciplinary proceeding. The inquiry proceeding being concluded, the Enquiry Officer submitted a report vide Annexure-7 recommending therein for punishment as indicated in Clause-VIII at page 32. Involving report at Annexure-7, the petitioner preferred an appeal and the appeal has been dismissed vide Annexure-10 resulting filing of the writ petition.

¶6

Challenging the order passed by the Disciplinary Authority as well as the Appellate Authority, petitioner has taken two grounds i.e. (i) Charging order passed by the Disciplinary Authority as defective on the premises of not providing reasonable opportunity to the petitioner inasmuch as not providing the petitioner to get the documents required and thereby preventing the petitioner from filing show cause in response to the charges and the second limb of argument is that for the favouring report by the Enquiry Officer in paragraph-VI, the recommendation for punishment remains contrary to such conclusion of the Enquiry Officer and further the appeal order also suffers for not taking into account the above allegations. Sri Panda, learned counsel for the petitioner-delinquent

¶7

-2-

¶8

taking this Court to the discussions in the Inquiry Report contended that the delinquent did not submit any defence statement due to non-supply of records to him and further taking this Court to the discussions in paragraph-VI of the Inquiry Report, Sri Panda, learned counsel again submitted that the conclusion drawn by the Enquiry Officer remains contrary to such conclusion. Taking this Court to the order of the Disciplinary Authority at Annexure-8, Sri Panda, learned counsel again demonstrated non-consideration of above two allegations by the appellate authority. It is in this view of the matter, Sri Panda prayed this Court for interfering in the inquiry report at Annexure-7 and the orders at Annexures-8 and 10 to the writ petition.

¶9

Learned counsel appearing for the contesting opposite party on the other hand taking this Court to the observation of the Enquiry Officer involving Annexure-7 attempted to justify the recommendation of punishment by the Enquiry Officer and taking this Court to the discussion in the order of the Disciplinary Authority at Annexure-8, learned counsel justified the award of punishment by the Disciplinary Authority. Learned counsel appearing for the opposite party being based on disclosures from the Inquiry Report and taking this Court to the appellate order also attempted to justify the reason assigned therein at Annexure-10.

¶10

Considering the rival contentions of the parties and looking to the grounds specifically taken in challenging the order at Annexure-7 and 10, this Court perusal of the Inquiry Report at Annexure-7 from paragraph-III finds the Inquiry Report has the following disclosure:

¶11

“ III) Defends explanation submitted if any :

¶12

The deligent did not submit any defence statement due to non-supply of records to him. However during the

¶13

-3-

¶14

case of enquiry all the connected papers were shown to

¶15

him. So he could cooperate in the inquiry.”

¶16

Reading the above, this Court finds in spite of giving opportunity to the petitioner to see the connected papers in the inquiry proceeding, petitioner did not file any response but, however, participated in the inquiry proceeding without his written reply. In this view of the matter, this Court finds there is no force in the ground no.1 raised by the petitioner herein. Now Considering the challenge to Annexures- 8 and 10 vis-à-vis the ground no.2, reading the Enquiry Report at page 31 this Court from paragraph at page 31 finds following observations:

¶17

“He did not submit any progress report or charge list at any time (Annex 7,6). He did not sign in the PVR dt.26.08.93. So he was not to be held responsible.

¶18

In analysis all the available documentary & oral evidence in the course of enquiry, the M.O. could not produce a single paper when the delicant had submitted as stock incharge prior to 26.08.93 i.e. the date of physical verification like progress reports, charge lists, any delivery certificate any stock report.”

¶19

Further in the concluding paragraph, the Enquiry Officer has

¶20

the following recordings:

¶21

“Sri Behera failed to discharge his duties as stock I/C and so all the materials of the lots were lost OFDC had sustained a loss of Rs.52700/- So Sri N.C. Behera F/A may be charged with 50% of the loss. As per circular L.No.2841 dt.10.04.69 of OFDC Ltd., and circular No.9379 dt.25.03.2004 of OFDC Ltd, the delicant should have been charged in full but for the reason of non transportation. Sri Behera above cannot be held

¶22

-4-

¶23

responsible in the interest of justice, in absence of specific evidences.”

¶24

Reading the above recordings of the Enquiry Officer, this Court finds the final conclusion exonerating the delinquent from the charges runs contrary to the recording made therein. Be that as it may, since the Enquiry Officer had already observed that Sri Behera cannot be held responsible in the interest of justice in absence of specific evidences, recommendation therein by the Enquiry Officer runs contrary to his own observation and finding. 6Perusal of the order of the Disciplinary Authority from annexure-8, this Court finds the Disciplinary Authority failed in appreciating the defect in the recommendation in the concluding remark of the Enquiry Officer. As such, this Court finds the order of the Disciplinary Authority also wrong and not sustainable in the eye of law. From the appeal order at Annexure-10, this Court finds petitioner though has so many grounds, the Appellate Authority has any of them in disposal vide Annexure-10. As a consequence, this Court finds Annexure-10 also bad and ought to be set aside.

¶25

In the result, this Court interfering in the impugned orders at Annexures-8 and 10, sets aside the both.

¶26

The writ petition succeeds.

¶27

sks

¶28

��. BISWANATH RATH,J

Narendra Ch.Behera v. O.F.D.C.Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Narendra Ch.Behera v. O.F.D.C.Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Prasanta Kumer Vs Cmn.,Rushikulya G.B.

Dr.Prasanta Ku.Moharana Vs Susama Maharana @ Ojha

Birosh Tamang Vs Director General of Police (S.a.P)

Varanasi Tulasi Ram Vs [email protected]

Pundarika Badajena Vs Nabakishore Jena

Sangeet Dutta Vs a.O.,D.G.M.Electrica