Allowed

Bijaya Kumar Mishra v. State of Odisha

Orissa HC19 Jan 2023WPC(OAC)/1073/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Orissa directed the disciplinary authority to appoint a competent Enquiry Officer instead of conducting the inquiry personally, under Rule 15(4) of the OCS (CCA) Rules, 1962, to ensure a fair trial.

What did the court decide?

The High Court directed the Opposite Party No. 3 to appoint a competent Enquiry Officer to conduct the inquiry into charges against the Petitioner.

Bijaya Kumar Mishra Vs State of Odisha — Service and Employment | Orissa HC (2023)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

¶2

W.P.(C)(OAC) No.1073 of 2018

¶3

Bijaya Kumar Mishra

¶4

Petitioner

¶5

-versus-

¶6

State of Odisha & Ors.

¶7

…. Opposite Parties

¶8

CORAM: JUSTICE BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY

ORDER

19.01.2023

Order No

05. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual/Physical) Mode.

¶13

2. Heard Mr. G.R. Sethi, learned counsel for the Petitioner and Mr. N.N. Satapathy, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the Department.

¶14

3. An affidavit is filed by the O.P. No. 3 in Court today. The same be kept on record.

¶15

4. The present writ petition has been filed with a prayer to quash the office order dtd.13.04.2018 passed by the O.P. No. 3 under Annexure-11. It is contended that the Petitioner while continuing as a Jamadar in the office of O.P. No. 3 a proceeding was initiated against him vide Memorandum dtd.25.09.2014 and in the said proceeding the Petitioner was imposed with the punishment of reversion vide order dtd.22.01.2016. The Petitioner challenging the said order of reversion approached the Tribunal in O.A. No. 530 of 2016. The Tribunal while issuing notice of the matter passed an interim order by restraining the Opp. Parties from taking other action pursuant to the order of reversion passed on 22.01.2016. During pendency of the matter in O.A. No. 530 of 2016 when office order dtd.19.03.2018 was issued the Petitioner prayed for

¶16

// 2 //

¶17

withdrawal of W.P.C.(OAC) No. 530 of 2016 and the said writ petition was dismissed as withdrawn vide order dtd.21.07.2022.

¶18

5. Learned counsel for the Petitioner contended that subsequent thereto when the impugned order was issued under Annexure-11, the present matter was filed before the Tribunal and the Tribunal while issuing notice of the matter, passed an order staying the operation of the order at Annexure-11 vide order dtd.01.06.2018.

¶19

6. Mr. Sethi, learned counsel for the Petitioner contended that since the proceeding in question under Annexure-2 has been initiated by the Director, Secondary Education-O.P. No. 3, he cannot be the Enquiry Officer to conduct the enquiry in terms of the impugned order at Annexure-11. It is also contended that the Petitioner will be seriously prejudiced, if the O.P. No. 3 who is the Disciplinary Authority will conduct the enquiry and proceed with the matter. Accordingly, Mr. Sethi prayed for interference of this Court in the order at Annexure-11.

¶20

7. Mr. Satapathy, learned Standing Counsel on the other hand submitted that even though the order of reversion was passed finally in the proceeding initiated under Annexure-2, but the said order was withdrawn vide order dtd.19.03.2018 under Annexure10. After withdrawing the said order O.P. No. 3 proposed to proceed with the enquiry afresh and issued the order at Annexure11 purportedly in terms of Rule 15(4) of the OCS (CCA) Rules, 1962. Learned Standing Counsel brought to the notice of this Court the provision contained under Rule 15(4) and the same is reproduced hereunder:-

¶21

“(4) On receipt of the written statement of defence or if no such statement is received within the time specified, the

¶22

Page 2 of 3

¶23

// 3 //

¶24

disciplinary authority may itself enquire into such of the charges as are not admitted or if it considers it necessary so to do, appoint a board of inquiry or an enquiring officer for the purpose.

¶25

Provided that if, after considering the written statement of defence, the disciplinary authority is of the view that the facts of the case do not justify the award of a major penalty, it shall determine after recording reasons thereof what other penalty or penalties, if any, as specified in Clauses (i) to (v) of Rule 13 should be imposed and shall after consulting the Commission, where such consultation is necessary, pass appropriate order.”

¶26

8. Though this Court after going through the said provision finds that in some cases the Disciplinary Authority may itself enquiry into such charges, but taking into account the nature of charges framed against the Petitioner vide Annexure-2, it is the view of this Court that the Director, Secondary Education-O.P. No. 3 instead of causing the enquiry himself may appoint an Enquiry Officer who is competent to conduct such enquiry and proceed with the matter. Therefore, while interfering with the order dtd.13.04.2018 under Annexure-11 this Court directs the O.P. No. 3 to appoint an Enquiry Officer who is competent to cause the enquiry into the charges framed against the Petitioner under Annexure-2 and proceed thereafter in accordance with Rule 15 of the OCS (CCA) Rules, 1962.

¶27

9. The writ petition is disposed with the aforesaid observation and direction.

¶28

(Biraja Prasanna Satapathy) Judge

¶29

Sneha

¶30

Page 3 of 3

Bijaya Kumar Mishra v. State of Odisha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bijaya Kumar Mishra v. State of Odisha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Anita Palei andORS. Vs General Manager,East

Dr. Satyapriya Dash Vs State of Odisha

Saita Krisani Vs Govt. of Odisha

Sidhartha Sankar Routray Vs D.G. and I.G of Police , Odisha

Sudarshan Mohanta Vs State of Odisha

Manoj Kumar Swain Vs State of Odisha