Dismissed

State of Odisha v. Santosh Kumar Mishra

Orissa HC16 Sept 2020WP(C)/16732/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court dismissed the writ petition filed by the State of Odisha challenging an Administrative Tribunal order. The court declined to interfere due to unexplained huge delay in filing and noted the respondent had retired in 2012. The order explicitly stated it would not be treated as a precedent.

What did the court decide?

Petition dismissed without expressing opinion on merits due to unexplained delay.

State of Odisha Vs Santosh Kumar Mishra — Labour and Industrial Disputes | Orissa HC (2020)

¶1

W.P.(C) No. 16732 of 2020

¶2

16.09.2020

¶3

This matter is taken up through video conferencing.

¶4

Heard Learned Additional Government Advocate for the

¶5

petitioners.

¶6

The State of Odisha and its functionary being the petitioners have assailed the order dated 29.11.2017 passed by the learned Odisha Administrative Tribunal, Cuttack Bench, Cuttack in O.A. No. 2274 (C) of 2008.

¶7

On perusal of the impugned order, it reveals that the opposite party had approached the learned Tribunal challenging the disciplinary proceeding initiated against him vide charge dated 10.09.1992, the inquiry report submitted in the said proceeding as well as the second show cause notice dated 30.08.2008 on the ground that the respondent No.2, i.e. Principal Secretary to Government, Food & Supply and Consumer Welfare Department is not the competent authority to initiate a proceeding against the petitioner and the Commissioner-cumSecretary, Revenue and Disaster Management Department is not the competent authority to issue the notice of show cause. The Tribunal after hearing the counsel for the parties observed that there is no scope for respondent no.1 to take a view other than the view taken by the Disciplinary Authority and would have issued notice. At best the order of the Disciplinary Authority would have been communicated through respondent No.1 being the present controlling authority. Accordingly, learned Tribunal quashed the notice to show cause under Annexure-18 as not maintainable and remitted the matter to the disciplinary authority to proceed with the enquiry from the stage such irregularity has been committed by issuing notice to show cause and thereafter to proceed for finalization of the proceeding in accordance with the rule.

¶8

Learned Additional Government Advocate submitted that since respondent no.1 was the appointing authority after promotion of the applicant, rightly the show cause notice was issued by the said authority. However the Tribunal without considering the same passed the impugned order on 29.11.2017.

¶9

Arun

¶10

On considering the above submission of learned Additional Government Advocate and on going through the impugned order, it reveals that such impugned order has been passed by the Tribunal in the presence of counsel for both the sides in the year 2017. Though this question was reflected in the impugned order which was raised by learned Additional Government Advocate, the Tribunal has passed the impugned order after hearing the counsel for both the parties, i.e. the counsel for the applicant as well as the government counsel. The impugned order was also communicated to counsel for both the parties. After receiving the same, the present writ petition was filed at a belated stage without explaining the delay in filing the writ application. On perusal of the averments made in the writ petition, this Court finds that no plausible explanation has been advanced by the State with regard of such huge delay in filing the writ application. The State authorities have not whispered a single word so far as such huge delay is concerned. The law is well settled that each day of delay should have been explained. That apart the opposite party has retired from Government service long since in the year 2012 and is aged about 66 years by now.

¶11

In view of the above, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, since the delay has not been explained in accordance with the law, we are not inclined to interfere with the impugned order at this belated stage. However in this peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, this order will not be treated as a precedent.

¶12

The writ petition is accordingly dismissed.

¶13

As the lock down period is continuing for COVID-19, the parties may utilize the soft copy of this order available in the High Court’s website or print thereof at par with the certified copy in the manner prescribed, vide Court’s notice No.4587, dated 25.03.2020.

¶14

S. Panda, J.

¶15

S.K. Panigrahi, J.

State of Odisha v. Santosh Kumar Mishra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State of Odisha v. Santosh Kumar Mishra

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

Trilochan Pradhan Vs State of Orissa

Harihar Behera Vs Collector and Dm, Angul

Lambodar Nial Vs State of Odisha

Bibhudatta Choudhury Vs State of Odisha

Dipesh Ku. Padhihari Vs Hi Tech Medical College and Hospital

Sushil Kumar Panda Vs State of Odisha