Dismissed¶26

State of Odisha v. Dr. Jadumani Nayak

Service law – Departmental enquiry – Ex-parte enquiry – Adjournment sought on ground of COVID-19

Orissa HC18 Nov 2024WA/1239/2024

Download

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

W.A. No. 1239 of 2024; State of Odisha & Anr. v. Dr. Jadumani Nayak; High Court of Orissa at Cuttack; decision dated 18.11.2024; Bench: Chakradhari Sharan Singh, Chief Justice and Savitri Ratho, J. Keywords: writ appeal against Single Judge remand order; dismissal from service set aside; ex-parte departmental enquiry; unauthorized absence, disobedience, negligence charges; COVID-19 adjournment; fresh notice to participate in enquiry; six-month timeline to conclude enquiry; no interference with impugned order; appeal dismissed with modification.

What did the court decide?

Writ appeal dismissed; impugned order modified only to the extent that the departmental enquiry must be concluded within six months from the date of the order. ¶26

State of Odisha Vs Dr. Jadumani Nayak — Orissa HC (2024) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Writ appeal dismissed; impugned order modified only to the extent that the departmental enquiry must be concluded within six months from the date of the order.

¶26

Issue for consideration

Whether the Division Bench should interfere with the learned Single Judge's order dated 08.09.2023 setting aside the dismissal of the respondent and remitting the disciplinary proceeding for fresh enquiry. +1 more

¶15

Court's answer

The departmental enquiry against the respondent was held ex-parte, and the respondent had admittedly written to the enquiry officer for adjournments on the date fixed for the enquiry.

¶23

Ratio / Principle

COVID-19 situation was a valid reason for the respondent to seek adjournment in the departmental enquiry.

¶23

Key takeaways

The impugned order of the learned Single Judge does not require any interference; the Bench is not inclined to interfere with it and finds no merit in the appeal.ratio¶24
The impugned order is modified only to the extent that the enquiry must be concluded within six months from the date of the appellate order.ratio¶25

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Service law - Departmental enquiry - Ex-parte enquiry - Adjournment sought on ground of COVID-19 - Writ appeal by State of Odisha against order dated 08.09.2023 of learned Single Judge in W.P.(C) No. 3577 of 2022, which set aside the dismissal of Dr. Jadumani Nayak dated 29.11.2021 and remitted the matter to the enquiry officer from the stage of enquiry with a direction to issue fresh notice for participation. Held: the enquiry having been held ex-parte while the respondent admittedly wrote seeking adjournments on all four dates fixed, the COVID-19 situation was a valid reason for seeking adjournment; no serious prejudice was caused to the State, which remained at liberty to proceed in accordance with law. The impugned order did not require interference, save that it was modified to require conclusion of the enquiry within six months. Writ appeal dismissed with the said modification (Division Bench, 18.11.2024).

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

¶2

W.A. No. 1239 of 2024

¶3

1. State of Odisha

¶4

2. Additional Chief Secretary to Government presently Commissioner -cum- Secretary to Government, Health & Family ….. Welfare Department, Bhubaneswar Appellants Mr. K.C. Kar, Government Advocate

¶5

-versus-

¶6

Dr. Jadumani Nayak

¶7

….. Respondent Mr. H.M. Dhal, Advocate

¶8

CORAM:

¶9

HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON’BLE MISS JUSTICE SAVITRI RATHO

ORDER

18.11.2024

Order No.

03.

This matter is taken up through hybrid Mode.

¶15

The State of Odisha has preferred this appeal against an order dated 08.09.2023 passed by the leaned Single Judge of this Court in W.P.(C) No. 3577 of 2022 whereby the order of dismissal passed against the respondent dated 29.11.2021 has been set aside. After quashing the order of dismissal, the learned Single Judge has remitted the matter back to the enquiry officer from the stage of enquiry with a direction to him to issue fresh notice to the petitioner for participating in the enquiry.

¶16

The impugned order required the disciplinary proceeding to be concluded within a period of six months from the date of the order.

¶17

Assailing the impugned order, the learned Government Advocate appearing on behalf of the State has submitted that the

¶18

Page 1 of 3

¶19

disciplinary proceeding was initiated against the respondent on the charge of serious misconduct in the nature of unauthorized absence from government duty, disobedience of the orders of the higher authority and negligence in government duty. In the departmental enquiry, despite notices issued, the respondent did not participate, though a written statement of the defence was filed. He has submitted that despite various notices issued by the enquiry officer, since the respondent did not participate, the enquiry officer, based on ex-parte enquiry, held the respondent guilty of the charges. The disciplinary authority agreeing with the finding of the enquiry officer rightly found the charge of misconduct against the respondent no.2 to be proved and passed the order of dismissal. He submits that there was no procedural irregularity in conducting the departmental enquiry and the order of punishment cannot be said to be disproportionate to the charge of misconduct.

¶20

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent on the other hand defending the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge has submitted that it was because of the COVID-19 situations/restrictions that it was difficult for him to participate the departmental proceeding. That is the reason why the respondent had been continuously seeking adjournment in the departmental enquiry, on all the four dates fixed by the enquiry officer. He has argued that the learned Single Judge has remitted the matter back to the enquiry officer for conducting the disciplinary enquiry afresh. No serious prejudice is caused to the State because of the impugned order as they have been given the liberty to proceed in the departmental enquiry, in accordance with law.

¶21

After having perused the impugned order passed by the

¶22

Page 2 of 3

¶23

learned Single Judge and having considered the rival submission advanced on behalf of the parties as noted above in the background of the materials available on records, we are of the view that the impugned order does not require any interference. The Departmental enquiry against the respondent was held ex-parte. Admittedly the respondent had written to the enquiry officer for adjournments on the date fixed for the enquiry. COVID-19 situation, in our opinion, was a valid reason for the respondent to seek adjournment in the departmental enquiry.

¶24

Considering the nature of order which has been passed by the learned Single Judge we are not inclined to interfere with the same. We therefore do not find any merit in this appeal.

¶25

The impugned order however is modified to the extent that the enquiry must be concluded within six months from today.

¶26

The writ appeal is dismissed with the aforesaid modification in the impugned order.

¶27

(Chakradhari Sharan Singh) Chief Justice

¶28

(Savitri Ratho) Judge

¶29

Sukanta/Puspa

¶30

Signature Not Verified

¶31

Digitally Signed Signed by: SUKANTA KUMAR BEHERA Designation: Senior Stenographer Reason: Authentication Location: Orissa High Court, Cuttack Date: 21-Nov-2024 12:31:03

¶32

Page 3 of 3

State of Odisha v. Dr. Jadumani Nayak

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State of Odisha v. Dr. Jadumani Nayak

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/S. Sakrobotix Lab Pvt. Ltd. Bbsr Vs State of Odisha

Satyasish Swain Vs Jaituna Bibi

Pashupati Jena Vs State of Odisha

State of Odisha Vs Bhakta Bandhu Sahoo

State of Odisha Vs Mahadev Behera

Padmalochan Panda Vs Union of India