Hrudananda Behera Vs State of Odisha

investigating officer in CID CB, Odisha Police. An enquiry officer was appointed and he submitted his report dated 29^th November, 2017 holding that the delinquent (Petitioner) is not guilty of the charges.

¶24

The disciplinary authority, who is the DG and IG of Police, Odisha disagreed with the finding of the enquiring officer holding him not guilty. Accordingly, the Petitioner was asked to submit his reply to such disagreement of the disciplinary authority and has ultimately been imposed with penalty of one black mark, vide impugned order dated 6^th August, 2019 at Annexure-8. The appeal preferred by the Petitioner against the same was also rejected by the Government at Annexure-10.

¶25

Mr. Das, learned counsel submits for the Petitioner that the reason of disagreement as stated by the disciplinary authority is not in accordance with the provisions of Appendix 49 to the Odisha Police Manual Rules and therefore, the punishment imposed on the Petitioner is unsustainable.

¶26

As seen from Annexure-4, the disciplinary authority has passed the order asking the delinquent officer to submit his reply to the

¶27

WP(C) No.10910 of 2021

¶28

Page 2 of 7

¶29

Signature Not Verified

¶30

Digitally Signed Signed by: MANAS KUMAR PANDA Reason: Authentication Location: OHC, Cuttack Date: 09-Jan-2025 15:50:24

¶31

disagreement to the finding of the enquiry officer. The relevant portion of said order is reproduced below:-

¶32

“After conducting the proceeding enquiry, the Enquiring Officer has submitted his findings holding the charged officer “Not guilty” of the charges.

¶33

The charged officer was charged with gross misconduct, dereliction of duty for failing to comply with many of the instructions imparted by supervising officer in a case of Crime Branch investigated by him. The orders / instructions and their non compliance have been duly exhibited during the proceeding. Despite this, the Enquiring Officer has held the charged officer not guilty.

¶34

For the aforesaid reason, I am not inclined to agree with the findings of the Enquiring Officer. The charged officer is called upon to submit his explanation / representation if any, on the findings of the Enquiring Officer and the observation of the disciplinary authority within 15 days from the date of receipt of this order for further action, failing which it will be presumed that he has nothing to represent or explain in the matter. A copy of the findings be served on the charged officer under acknowledgment.”

¶35

It is thus seen that the only reason stated by the disciplinary

¶36

authority that though the orders/instructions and their noncompliance have been duly exhibited during the proceeding, but the enquiry officer held the delinquent not guilty. In other words, as per

¶37

WP(C) No.10910 of 2021

¶38

Page 3 of 7

¶39

Signature Not Verified

¶40

Digitally Signed Signed by: MANAS KUMAR PANDA Reason: Authentication Location: OHC, Cuttack Date: 09-Jan-2025 15:50:24

¶41

the reasons stated by the disciplinary authority the delinquent should have been held guilty for the charge since the orders / instructions of the supervisor have been exhibited including their non-compliance, in course of the proceeding.

¶42

The language depicted in Appendix 49 is clear to the effect that

¶43

the disciplinary authority must record the reasons in writing for his disagreement on such points against the enquiry officer’s finding.

¶44

In Punjab National Bank and Others v. Kunj Behari Misra,

¶45

AIR 1998 SC 2713 Hon’ble Supreme Court have explained as

¶46

follows:-

¶47

“18. Under Regulation 6 the inquiry proceedings can be conducted either by an inquiry officer or by the disciplinary authority itself. When the inquiry is conducted by the inquiry officer his report is not final or conclusive and the disciplinary proceedings do not stand concluded. The disciplinary proceedings stand concluded with decision of the disciplinary authority. It is the disciplinary authority which can impose the penalty and not the inquiry officer. Where the disciplinary authority itself holds an inquiry an opportunity of hearing has to be granted by him. When the disciplinary authority differs with the view of the inquiry officer and proposes to come to a different conclusion, there is no reason as to why an opportunity of hearing should not be granted. It will be most unfair and

¶48

WP(C) No.10910 of 2021

¶49

Page 4 of 7

¶50

Signature Not Verified

¶51

Digitally Signed Signed by: MANAS KUMAR PANDA Reason: Authentication Location: OHC, Cuttack Date: 09-Jan-2025 15:50:24

¶52

iniquitous that where the charged officers succeed before the inquiry officer they are deprived of representing to the disciplinary authority before that authority differs with the inquiry officer's report and, while recording of guilt, imposes punishment on the officer. In our opinion, in any such situation the charged officer must have an opportunity to represent before the Disciplinary Authority before final findings on the charges are recorded and punishment imposed. This is required to be done as a part of the first stage of inquiry as explained in Karunakar's case (1994 AIR SCW 1050) (supra).

¶53

The result of the aforesaid discussion would be that the principles of natural justice have to be read into Regulation 7(2). As a result thereof whenever the disciplinary authority disagrees with the inquiry authority on any article of charge then before it records its own findings on such charge, it must record its tentative reasons for such disagreement and give to the delinquent officer an opportunity to represent before it records its findings. The report of the inquiry officer containing its findings will have to be conveyed and the delinquent officer will have an opportunity to persuade the disciplinary authority to accept the favorable conclusion of the inquiry officer. The principles of natural justice, as we have already observed, require the authority, which has to take a final decision and can impose a penalty, to give an opportunity to the officer charged of misconduct to file a representation before the disciplinary authority records its findings on the charges framed against the officer.

¶54

WP(C) No.10910 of 2021

¶55

Page 5 of 7

¶56

Signature Not Verified

¶57

Digitally Signed Signed by: MANAS KUMAR PANDA Reason: Authentication Location: OHC, Cuttack Date: 09-Jan-2025 15:50:24

¶58

The aforesaid conclusion, which we have arrived at, is also in consonance with the underlying principle enunciated by this Court in the case of Institute of Chartered Accountants (AIR 1987 SC 71) (supra). While agreeing with the decision in Ram Kishan's case (1995 AIR SCW 4027) (supra), we are of the opinion that the contrary view expressed in S.S. Koshal (1994 AIR SCW 2901) and M.C. Saxena's cases (1998 AIR SCW 965) (supra) do not lay down the correct law.”

¶59

In the case at hand, Clause-10 of Appendix 49, read with Rule

¶60

828 postulates that the disciplinary authority has to give its reasons for disagreement on such suggested points. Such provisions recorded in those procedures do not speak for recording of the word disagreement only for such purpose by the disciplinary authority. What the provisions contemplate is that, the reasons of disagreement must be clear and distinctive. As stated in the present case that the exhibits have been brought on record to show non-compliance of the instructions imparted by the supervising officer, would not satisfy the requirement of reasons contemplated in the provisions of the Odisha Police Manual. Therefore the order of disagreement passed

¶61

by the disciplinary authority under Annexure-4 is not satisfying the requirement of procedures given in the provisions of the Police Manual Rules.

¶62

Page 6 of 7

¶63

WP(C) No.10910 of 2021

¶64

Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: MANAS KUMAR PANDA Reason: Authentication Location: OHC, Cuttack Date: 09-Jan-2025 15:50:24

¶65

It needs to be mentioned here that the enquiry officer’s report under Annexure-3 is justifying the reasons for its finding of no guilt against the Petitioner and the same cannot be simply brushed aside by the disciplinary authority stating that the materials have been exhibited on record, without consideration of such materials. Therefore, the punishment order followed by the finding by the disciplinary authority holding the Petitioner as guilty for the charges is unsustainable. When the orders of the disciplinary authority to hold the Petitioner guilty is found unsustainable in the eye of law, the consequential imposition of punishment has also become non-

¶66

est.

¶67

For the reasons stated above, the impugned orders of punishment under Annexure-8 and rejection of the appeal under Annexure-10, which is a non-speaking order, are set aside. The writ petition is allowed and Petitioner may be granted all such consequential service benefits.

¶68

M..K. Panda, P.A.

¶69

WP(C) No.10910 of 2021

¶70

Page 7 of 7

Hrudananda Behera v. State of Odisha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Hrudananda Behera v. State of Odisha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

The Divisional Manager,I.C.I.C.I Lombard General Insurance Company Vs Santanu Kumar Sahu

Basanti Behera Vs Pabitra Ku.Nayak

Santanu Kumar Sahu Vs Satyanarayan Bisoye

Durga Prasad Mohanty Vs State of Odisha

Srirama Ch.Mishra Vs Orissa State Co-Op.

Sushree Sarita Swain Vs State of Odisha