Disposed

Dr.Rajashree Mishra v. O.U.A.T.

Orissa HC26 Oct 2021WP(C)/11959/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition challenging initiation and continuation of disciplinary proceedings, the High Court noted proceedings were pending over a decade. The Court directed the petitioner to represent needed documents to the authority within seven days, ordered the authority to supply any required documents within three weeks, and mandated completion of the enquiry within five months from disposal of t

What did the court decide?

Petitioner to submit document representation within 7 days; authority to supply documents within 3 weeks and complete enquiry within 5 months.

Dr.Rajashree Mishra Vs O.U.A.T. — Writ and Judicial Review | Orissa HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

¶2

WP(C) NO.11959 OF 2010

¶3

Dr.Rajashree Mishra

¶4

Petitioner

¶5

Mr.D.K.Mohapatra, Adv.

¶6

-versus-

¶7

OUAT & Ors.

¶8

…. Opposite Parties

¶9

Mr.A.Mishra, Sr.Adv.

¶10

CORAM: JUSTICE BISWANATH RATH

ORDER

26.10.2021

Order No.

The Writ Petition involves the following prayer :-

¶16

“Under the facts and circumstances of the above

¶17

case, it is therefore prayed that the Hon’ble Court may graciously be pleased to

¶18

(i) Issue Rule Nisi in the nature of Mandamus or any other appropriate Writ/Writs, Order/Orders, Direction/Directions directing the Opposite Parties to show cause as to why the Disciplinary Proceedings initiated against the Petitioner (Annexure-17) as well as the direction of the Inquiry Officer to attend the Enquiry on 17.7.2010 (Annexure-24) shall not be quashed,

¶19

(ii) And further the Hon’ble Court may be pleased to direct that the Petitioner is entitled to get all her service & financial benefits retrospectively,

¶20

(iii) And if the Opposite Parties fail to show cause or show insufficient cause/and/or fail to show cause make the said Rule Nisi Absolute,

¶21

Page 1 of 4

¶22

// 2 //

¶23

(iv) And for this Act of kindness the Petitioner as in duty bound shall every pray.”

¶24

The sum and substance in the Writ Petition involved a

¶25

challenge to the initiation of a Disciplinary Proceeding involving the Petitioner by the employer.

¶26

Assailing the continuation of the Disciplinary Proceeding and

¶27

taking through the grounds taken in the Writ Petition, Mr. D.K.Mohapatra, learned counsel for the Petitioner submitted that since the dispute involves a Disciplinary Proceeding, unless the Petitioner, the Delinquent, is provided with all relevant materials taken support in the charges and likely to be relied on by the

¶28

Disciplinary Authority, there may not be fair disposal of the Disciplinary Proceeding.

¶29

During course of submission, it has been brought to the

¶30

notice of this Court by Mr.A.Mishra, learned senior counsel for the University that in filing Rejoinder during pendency of the Writ Petition, the Petitioner brought to the notice of the Court that in the meantime on her attempt for supply of documents, there has been supply of certain documents but some are yet to be supplied, as clearly disclosed at internal Page-6 of the Rejoinder. It is in this view of the matter, Mr.Mishra, learned senior counsel made a statement

¶31

Page 2 of 4

¶32

// 3 //

¶33

that in the event any document is still required to be supplied and genuinely required for purposeful determination of the disciplinary Proceeding, the Petitioner can very well approach the Disciplinary Authority and the Authority is ready and willing to consider the same but in accordance with law.

¶34

There is no dispute to the above development by the learned

¶35

counsel for the Petitioner.

¶36

Considering the Writ Petition filed at initiation of Disciplinary Proceeding, this Court is not inclined to enter into such controversy at this stage and to opine in any manner to the prejudice of both the Parties. In the circumstance and keeping in view the development taken place in the meantime further also keeping in view that the Disciplinary Proceeding involving the Petitioner is pending over a decade, this Court in disposal of the Writ Petition permits the Petitioner to make a detailed representation to the Disciplinary Authority indicating the required documents giving reason justifying for supply of such documents within a period of seven days along with copy of this order. In such event, the Disciplinary Authority is directed to consider the same and supply documents, if any, required to be supplied keeping in view a fair

¶37

Page 3 of 4

¶38

// 4 //

¶39

disposal of an enquiry within a period of at least three weeks of receipt of such application.

¶40

It is at this stage of the matter, again considering the Disciplinary Proceeding initiated in 2009 and pending over a decade may be for pendency of the present litigation, this Court while directing the Petitioner to cooperate in the Disciplinary Proceeding for its early disposal directs the Disciplinary Authority and the Enquiring Officer to complete the entire exercise within a period of five months from the date of disposal of Petitioner’s request indicated herein above.

¶41

The Writ Petition thus stands disposed of.
9. Issue urgent certified copy.

¶42

(Biswanath Rath) Judge

¶43

M.K.Rout

¶44

Page 4 of 4

Dr.Rajashree Mishra v. O.U.A.T.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dr.Rajashree Mishra v. O.U.A.T.

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

Caleb Children'S Vs State

Gourisankar Vs Commissioner

Prasant Kumar Parida Vs Lalu Bhumij

Kakarla Varalaxmi Vs Kadarka Muguri

Kanaklata Dash Vs State

Anil Ku.Jena Vs State