Dr.Trupti Patnaik Vs Financial Adviser

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACK

¶2

W.P.(C) No.10085 of 2003

¶3

Dr. Trupti Patnaik ....... Petitioner

¶4

-Versus-

¶5

Financial Adviser-Cum-
Deputy Secretary to Govt.,
Education and Youth
Services (LFS),
Bhubaneswar & others ....... Opp. Parties
For Petitioner : Proxy Counsel on behalf of
Mr. Y. Mohanty,Sr. Advocate
For Opp. Parties : Mr. T. Patnaik,
Addl. Standing Counsel
----------------------------
CORAM: JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR MISHRA
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Date of Hearing & Judgment: 24.01.2024
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
S.K. Mishra, J . The Petitioner, who is a doctor, has preferred this

¶6

Writ Petition challenging the initiation of Certificate Proceeding against her, bearing Certificate Case No.146/1986, now pending before the Certificate Officer, Cuttack, with a further prayer to direct the Opposite Parties for release of her salary forthwith.

¶7

02. The main ground to challenge the initiation of

¶8

Certificate Proceeding is that, though the Petitioner had already deposited the certificate amount of Rs.4,513/- on 31.07.1996 in the Department counter towards her loan stipend dues, the Certificate Proceeding initiated against her was not dropped. On the request of the Petitioner, the A.F.Acum-Under Secretary to Govt., in the Department of Higher Education, issued a letter to the Special Certificate Officer, Puri, vide letter dated 18.03.1998 to take appropriate steps for finalization of the case of the Petitioner as she had already deposited the certificate amount on 31.07.1996. However, because of inaction, again the Under Secretary on 23.12.1998 issued another letter to the Special Certificate Officer, Puri, in reference to the earlier letter to take necessary steps to close the Certificate Case initiated against the Petitioner as she had already deposited the entire requisition amount of the certificate dues. After issuance of the letter under Annexures2 & 3, the Petitioner being a doctor and being busy in rendering social service, remained with an impression that the certificate case must have been closed in pursuance to the letters dated 18.03.1998 & 23.12.1998, as at Annexures-2 &

¶9

W.P.(C) No.10085 of 2003

¶10

Page 2 of 8

¶11

3. However, sometimes in the month of March/April,

¶12

2003, the Petitioner was surprised to know that her arrear salary from 27.12.2001 to 31.03.2002 and current salary till the month of March and April, 2003 had been objected and not released, based on the letter dated 20/22.01.2003 of the Special Certificate Officer to the C.D.M.O., Cuttack, with a copy to the District Treasury Officer, Cuttack and S.D.M.O., Cuttack, to held up her salary.

¶13

4. It is further case of the Petitioner that, since the outstanding dues, as claimed, is a negligible amount of Rs.5,751/-, the Special Certificate Officer, Puri, has no jurisdiction to withhold the release of the salary of the Petitioner beyond the outstanding dues. Accordingly, being aggrieved by the said initiation of the certificate proceeding, the Petitioner preferred an Appeal bearing No.4/2003 before the A.D.M., Puri. During pendency of the Appeal, the A.D.M. sought for certified copy the order under which the letter under Annexure-4 has been issued withholding the salary of the Petitioner. When the Petitioner took step to obtain the said Order, the same could not be supplied due to the whimsical act of Opposite Party No.5 in transferring the case

¶14

W.P.(C) No.10085 of 2003

¶15

Page 3 of 8

¶16

to the Court of the Certificate Officer, Cuttack in the month of April, 2003. On query, the Petitioner came to know that the records of the Certificate Case were not received by the Certificate Officer, Cuttack, till the third week of July, 2003. Hence, no step could be taken to file copy of the order before the A.D.M., Puri, for which the Appeal could not be proceed and no order could be passed for release of the salary of the Petitioner. The A.D.M., Puri, also failed to exercise jurisdiction

¶17

in not allowing dispensing with the filing of certified copy of

¶18

the said order.

¶19

5. The Petitioner after coming to know about the receipt

¶20

of the case records by the Certificate Officer, Cuttack, from the Certificate Officer, Puri, voluntarily appeared in the Certificate Case No.146/86 on 13.08.2003 and filed a show cause with a prayer to recall the order dated 20.02.1998 and

¶21

to drop the proceeding so also for issuance of clearance certificate for payment of the salary. But the Certificate Officer without passing any order sent the copy of the show cause to the certificate holder for filing of his views. On 16.08.2003, the Petitioner filed an application before the Certificate Officer, Cuttack, seeking for direction to the C.D.M.O.,

¶22

W.P.(C) No.10085 of 2003

¶23

Page 4 of 8

¶24

Cuttack, District Treasury Officer, Cuttack and the S.D.M.O., Cuttack to release the salary forthwith. But the Certificate Officer expressed his inability to hear the application on the plea that the same has been transmitted under Section 12 of the O.P.D.R. Act. Accordingly, a copy of the Petition filed by the petitioner was sent to the Special Certificate Officer, Puri, for disposal vide order dated 16.08.2003

¶25

6. It is the further case of the Petitioner that, since the entire certificate dues have been deposited by the Petitioner since 31.07.1996, the Certificate Officer, Cuttack, instead of sending the application to the Special Certificate Officer, Puri, should have disposed of the application submitted by the Petitioner and dropped the proceeding by issuing the clearance certificate for release of her salary.

¶26

7. It is the further case of the Petitioner that from the

¶27

entire order sheet of the Certificate Case, it reveals that at no point of time, the Special Certificate Officer, Cuttack, has passed an order to issue letter to the District Treasury Officer, Cuttack, to withhold the salary of the Petitioner. But the Special Certificate Officer, Puri, without any order, has issued the letter under Annexure-4 with direction to withhold the

¶28

W.P.(C) No.10085 of 2003

¶29

Page 5 of 8

¶30

salary of the Petitioner and no opportunity of being heard was afforded to her before passing such penal order. Hence, the said order deserves interference.

¶31

8. It is pertinent to mention here that the coordinate Bench , recording the submission of the learned counsel for the Petitioner, as an interim, vide order dated 28.10.2003 in Misc. Case No.10980 of 2003, passed the following order:

¶32

“Heard Mr.Mohanty, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Das, learned Additional Government Advocate for opposite parties.

¶33

Mr. Mohanty, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the Special Certificate officer, Puri has no jurisdiction to issue a letter to the Chief District Medical Officer, Cuttack to withhold the salary of the petitioner. He further submitted that in spite of intimation about the said fact to the Certificate Officer, the petitioner is no being paid his salary.

¶34

It appears that the certificate demand as against the petitioner is now restricted to an amount of Rs.5751/- (i.e. Rs.5691/- towards interest and Rs.60/- towards process fee and cost).

¶35

Out of the salary of the petitioner, only the said amount of Rs.5751/- be withheld and the balance amount of salary of the petitioner may be released. The retention of Rs.5751/- will be without prejudice to the rights and contention of the petitioner in this writ petition and subject to the result of the writ petition.

¶36

The District Treasury Officer, Cuttack is directed to release the salary of the petitioner regularly from month to month after retention of the aforesaid amount of Rs.5751/-.”

¶37

(Emphasis supplied)

¶38

W.P.(C) No.10085 of 2003

¶39

Page 6 of 8

¶40

9. A query being made, learned Counsel for the Petitioner submits, the Petitioner has already retired from service in the meantime.

¶41

10. Since it is the admitted case that in addition to the certificate amount of Rs.4,513/-, by virtue of the interim order dated 28.10.2003, an amount of Rs.5,751/- from the salary of the petitioner was withheld, which is towards interest on the certificate dues and the entire certificate amount along with the interest have already been recovered

¶42

from the Petitioner since long, this court is of the view that the certificate proceeding deserves to be set-aside.

¶43

Accordingly, proceeding in Certificate Case No.146 of 1986,

¶44

now pending in the Court of Certificate Officer, Cuttack, is hereby set aside.

¶45

11. As the learned Counsel for the Petitioner fairly

¶46

admits that after the interim order dated 28.10.2003 was passed by the coordinate Bench, all the unpaid salary were released in favour of the Petitioner and after her retirement,

¶47

she is also getting her regular pension, this Court is of the view that no further direction is necessary for release the salary of the petitioner, as prayed for.

¶48

W.P.(C) No.10085 of 2003

¶49

Page 7 of 8

¶50

12. Accordingly, the Writ Petition stands disposed of. No

order as to cost.

…….….………………

S.K. MISHRA, J.

High Court of Orissa, Cuttack The 24^th January, 2024 /Prasant

¶55

Signature Not Verified

¶56

Digitally Signed Signed by: PRASANT KUMAR PRADHAN Designation: Secretary Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack. Date: 28-Jan-2024 13:26:19

¶57

W.P.(C) No.10085 of 2003

¶58

Page 8 of 8

Dr.Trupti Patnaik v. Financial Adviser

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dr.Trupti Patnaik v. Financial Adviser

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Pravakar Sahu Vs State of Odisha

Chakradhar Behera Vs Cm,Cuttack Municpal

Girija Devi Vs Subash Ch. Agarwala

Nabin Behera Vs State

Union of India Vs Biswanath Mahapatra

Zainul Abedin Khan Vs State of Odisha