Disposed¶51

Basanta Kumar Panigrahi v. Odisha Small Industries Corp. Ltd.

Orissa HC18 Jun 2024WP(C)/6614/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

OSIC Rules 1979; Rule 48(1)(d); Rule 48(2); Rule 48(5); Rule 54; Rule 55; disciplinary proceeding; recovery of shortage; unauthorized credit sales; Raw Materials Depot Keonjhar; suspension treated as leave; stoppage of increment; appellate authority sets aside punishment; Order No.1725/OSIC dated 27.05.2020; Office Order No.4038 dated 21.06.2003; W.P.(C) No.6415 of 2005; W.P.(C) No.15714 of 2007; W.P.(C) No.20494 of 2021; special audit; non-availability of books of accounts; refund of deducted salary; monthly deduction Rs.4,379/-; refund Rs.78,822/-; interest @9% per annum from 25.04.2022; writ petition disposed with refund direction.

What did the court decide?

Direction to refund Rs.78,822/- to the petitioner within two weeks along with interest @9% per annum from 25.04.2022 till actual payment. ¶51

Basanta Kumar Panigrahi Vs Odisha Small Industries Corp. Ltd. — Orissa HC (2024) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Direction to refund Rs.78,822/- to the petitioner within two weeks along with interest @9% per annum from 25.04.2022 till actual payment.

¶51

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioner is entitled to refund of the amount recovered from him pursuant to the punishment dated 12.09.2018 which was set aside in appeal, the refundable amount being Rs.78,822/-. +1 more

¶37

Court's answer

The refundable amount of Rs.78,822/- shall be refunded to the petitioner within a period of two weeks; his entitlement to the refund was not in dispute before the Court.

¶50

Ratio / Principle

The refund shall carry interest @9% per annum from 25.04.2022 (date of the auditors' letter) till its actual payment.

¶50

Key takeaways

Interest was awarded because the Corporation had not refunded the amount even after the appellate order attained finality, although the auditors had recorded that relevant and important books of accounts and records were not available.ratio¶49

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Orissa (W.P.(C) No.6614 of 2022, decided 18.06.2024, M.S. Raman, J.) — DISPOSED OF WITH DIRECTIONS. Petitioner, an employee of Odisha Small Industries Corporation Ltd. (earlier Junior Assistant, Depot-in-Charge, Raw Materials Depot, Keonjhar), was suspended on 09.10.2001 and subjected to disciplinary proceedings under the OSIC Rules, 1979; punishments imposed by Office order dated 12.09.2018 (including recovery of Rs.78,76,116.00 under Rule 48(1)(d)) were set aside by the Chairman-cum-Appellate Authority vide Order No.1725/OSIC dated 27.05.2020, with directions to reconcile the Depot's credit and recovery registers. Monthly deductions of Rs.4,379/- (October 2018 to April 2020) had meanwhile been made. A special audit (letter dated 25.04.2022) reported that the correct position could not be ascertained as relevant books of accounts and records were unavailable. With refund of Rs.78,822/- being undisputed yet unpaid even after the appellate order attained finality, the Court directed refund of Rs.78,822/- within two weeks together with interest @9% per annum from 25.04.2022 till actual payment.

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C) No.6614 of 2022

¶2

Basanta Kumar Panigrahi …. Petitioner Mr. Karunakar Jena, Advocate

¶3

-versus-

¶4

Odisha Small Industries Corporation …. Opposite Parties Ltd. and others

¶5

Mr. Jatindra Kumar Mohapatra, Advocate

CORAM:

Order No.

06.

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE MURAHARI SRI RAMAN ORDER 18.06.2024

¶10

This matter is taken up through Hybrid Mode.

¶11

The petitioner, Junior Assistant, suspended on 09.10.2001, faced disciplinary proceeding onduct in terms of Rules 48(2) and 48(5) of the Orissa Small Industries Corporation Employees Service Rules, 1979 (for short “the OSIC Rules, 1979”) for gross impropriety, dishonesty, negligence in duty, fraud and misappropriation in dealing with the properties of the Corporation while working as Depot-in-Charge of Raw Materials Depot, Keonjhar during the period from 13.12.1991 to 25.08.2001.

¶12

As a result of enquiry, the proceeding culminated on 21.06.2003 and the petitioner was discharged from service, where direction was issued for recovery of misappropriated amount along with interest @18% per annum till the date of final recovery vide Office Order No.4038 dated 21.06.2003.

¶13

Page 1 of 7

¶14

Being aggrieved by the said order dated 21.06.2003, the petitioner filed an appeal invoking provisions of Rule 55 of the OSIC Rules, 1979 before the Chairman of the Corporation on 11.12.2004. Since no order was passed by the Appellate Authority, the petitioner filed a writ petition bearing W.P.(C) No.6415 of 2005, which came to be disposed of on 23.09.2005 with a direction to the Chairman of the Corporation for early disposal of the appeal. Ultimately, the petition succeeded in appeal, wherein the Chairmancum-Appellate Authority set aside the order of punishment dated 21.06.2003 and remanded the matter to the Disciplinary Authority with a direction to consider and dispose of the matter afresh on the available records within one month.

¶15

The petitioner submitted his representation dated 10.02.2006 to ventilate his grievance before opposite party no.1 and requested to pay the subsistence allowance and salary as per the provisions of Rule 54 of the OSIC Rules, 1979. Since the Disciplinary Authority did not dispose of the matter within time stipulated, the petitioner approached the Chairman-cum-Appellate Authority. However, the Disciplinary Authority directed to frame charges relating to the alleged unauthorized credit sales and imposed punishment for recovery of shortage of raw material of Rs.7,26,289.48 from the petitioner. Against the said order dated 04.02.2006, the petitioner filed appeal on 10.03.2006, which was rejected by the Chairmancum-Appellate Authority vide order dated 05.09.2006. The petitioner challenged the said order of rejection before this Court by filing writ petition being W.P.(C) No.15714 of 2007, praying therein to quash the order of suspension dated 09.10.2001 and the

¶16

Page 2 of 7

¶17

charge sheet dated 01.11.2001 drawn by opposite party no.1 against the petitioner and order dated 05.09.2006 of the Appellate Authority and the additional charges framed against the petitioner vide order No.745 dated 04.02.2006. The said writ petition was disposed of by this Court vide order dated 09.11.2017 with a direction to the opposite parties to conclude the disciplinary proceeding within stipulated period. Accordingly, after filing of show-cause reply to the notice received from Disciplinary Authority, the disciplinary proceeding was concluded by Office order dated 12.09.2018 imposing certain punishments, which are as follows:-

¶18

“(i) Outstanding amount towards unauthorized credit sale of Rs.78,76,116.00 shall be recovered from him under Rule 48(1)(d) of the OSIC Employees Service Rule, 1979.

¶19

(ii) One increment of Sri Panigrahi be stopped with cumulative effect.

¶20

(iii) Period of suspension of Sri Panigrahi for the period from 09.10.2001 to 03.05.2012 shall be treated as leave.”

¶21

Being aggrieved against the order of punishment dated 12.09.2018 passed by the Managing Director-cum-Disciplinary Authority, the appeal was filed under Rule 48(1)(d) of the OSIC Rules, 1979. The appeal was allowed in favour of the petitioner vide order No.1725/OSIC dated 27.05.2020, which is to the following effect:-

¶22

“I found that impugned punishment dated 12.09.2018 passed by the Disciplinary Authority on the basis of the enquiry report dated 02.02.2014 is not justified and not sustainable and accordingly, I set aside the impugned punishment given by the Disciplinary Authority, and in the present facts and circumstances, I direct to reconcile the credit and

¶23

Page 3 of 7

¶24

recovery registers relating to Raw Material Depot, Keonjhar at present Branch Office, Keonjhar for the alleged period in presence of the DO within a period of one month hence and till then no recovery will made from the salary of Sri Panigrahi.”

¶25

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that though an application for passing interim order of stay of operation of order of punishment dated 12.09.2018 was moved before the appellate authority, no order was passed. Therefore, the authority concerned started deducting a sum of Rs.4,379/- per month from the month of October, 2018 till the month of April, 2020. He submitted that since the appeal came to an end by setting aside the punishment with further direction for reconciliation of amount in the Chartered Accountant has intimated the General Manager (OSIC) as follows:-

¶26

“Sir,

¶27

Subsequent to above letters, kindly ref. to our discussion with your learned officer GM (Finance) in presence of Manager (Finance) on 18/04/2022, Where in it was discussed to ascertain possibility of reconciliation of the book of accounts & records to substance the charge of recovery framed & claims lodged on Mr. B.K. Panigrahi, Sr. Assistant, B.O., Keonjhar.

¶28

On your advice, we have discussed with the accounts & finance division of HO, We also examined the availability of books of accounts & to form our opinion as to possibility of taking up the assignment of special audit for a purposeful conclusion,

¶29

Now after checking of documents records (as follows), it is observed that

¶30

I. Consolidated year wise customer ledger from 1991 to 2001 are available at HO.

¶31

II. Customer ledger available only for six year (1993-94, 1994-95, 1995-96, 1999-2000, 200102)

¶32

Page 4 of 7

¶33

III. Customer ledger not available for FY 1990-91, 1991-92, 1992-93, 1996-97, 1997-98 & 199899)

¶34

IV. Statement prepared by M/S OSIC only debit balance of party of Rs.88,27,424,47 & not considered credit balance of party of Rs.1,51,97,102.75

¶35

Under the above circumstances to arrive at correct situation is not possible as relevant & important books of accounts & records are not available.”

¶36

He further submitted that the recovery of amount was not justified even while the petitioner moved a petition for not to deduct amount before the appellate authority. He also submitted that since the punishment was set aside by the appellate authority and reconciliation could not be possible for non-availability of record, the petitioner cannot be held responsible. Hence, he has prayed for a direction to refund the amount along with interest @12% per annum.

¶37

Learned counsel for the opposite parties fairly conceded that there is no dispute regarding aforesaid facts and affirmed that the petitioner is entitled for refund because the appellate authority’s order setting aside the punishment has been accepted by the Corporation. However, he has strong objection to grant of interest.

¶38

This Court has taken note of the aforesaid chronology of events as submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that an amount of Rs.78,822/- has been due for refund to the petitioner. Learned counsel for the opposite parties submitted that since the conciliation proceeding was taken up expeditiously by the Corporation, this amount can be refunded within a stipulated period that may be directed by this Court. Therefore, it is a fact that even

¶39

Page 5 of 7

¶40

after the order in appeal has attained finality the amount has not yet been refunded to the petitioner.

¶41

This Court passed an order dated 26.07.2021 in W.P.(C) No.20494 of 2021, which is quoted hereunder:-

¶42

“Heard learned counsel for the petitioner.

¶43

The petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking direction to the opposite parties to regularize his services and provide all service benefits and give promotion from the date his juniors have been promoted to the next higher post. He further seeks direction to the opposite parties to refund the amount deducted from his monthly salary from October, 2018 to April 2020 with interest @ 12% per annum.

¶44

In course of hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner states that highlighting the grievances, the petitioner has made representation to opposite party no.2 vide Annexure-14 and the same may be directed to be considered within a stipulated time.

¶45

Considering the limited grievance of the petitioner, this Court, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, disposes of the writ petition directing opposite party no.2 to consider the representation filed by the petitioner vide Annexure-14 and pass appropriate order in accordance with law within a period of three months from the date of production of authenticated/certified copy this order.”

¶46

Learned counsel for the parties conceded that after aforesaid order has been passed by this Court, a special audit was conducted, wherein the Chartered Accountants have submitted the audit report and issued letter to General Manager (Finance), OSIC Limited on 25.04.2022 stating that “under the above circumstances to provide correct situation is not possible as relevant and important books of accounts & records are not available”.

¶47

Considering the submissions made by the parties and after going through the records, this Court is of the opinion that in spite of such a fact has been recorded by the auditors, the Corporation

¶48

Page 6 of 7

¶49

has not yet been refunded the aforesaid amount of Rs.78,822/-. Hence, this Court is inclined to accede to the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is entitled to interest of such refundable amount which is not in dispute before this Court.

¶50

In the result, it is directed that the said amount of Rs.78,822/-shall be refunded to the petitioner within a period of two weeks along with interest @9% per annum from 25.04.2022 till its actual payment.

¶51

With the aforesaid observation and direction, the writ petition stands disposed of.

¶52

(M.S. Raman) Judge

¶53

Laxmikant

¶54

Signature Not Verified

¶55

Digitally Signed Signed by: LAXMIKANT MOHAPATRA Designation: Senior Stenographer Reason: Authentication Location: high court of orissa, cuttack Date: 18-Jun-2024 16:40:03

¶56

Page 7 of 7

Procedural history

How this case reached the court

AI extract

Prior proceeding
Petitioner (Junior Assistant) suspended on 09.10.2001 and subjected to disciplinary proceedings under Rules 48(2) and 48(5) of the OSIC Rules, 1979 for alleged gross impropriety, dishonesty, negligence, fraud and misappropriation as Depot-in-Charge, Raw Materials Depot, Keonjhar (13.12.1991 to 25.08.2001).¶11
Prior proceeding
Enquiry culminated on 21.06.2003; petitioner discharged from service with direction for recovery of misappropriated amount along with interest @18% per annum till final recovery vide Office Order No.4038 dated 21.06.2003.¶12
Prior proceeding
Appeal under Rule 55 of the OSIC Rules, 1979 filed before the Chairman of the Corporation on 11.12.2004; no order was passed by the Appellate Authority.¶14
Prior proceeding
Earlier writ petition W.P.(C) No.6415 of 2005 disposed of on 23.09.2005 with a direction to the Chairman of the Corporation for early disposal of the appeal.¶14
Prior proceeding
Appeal succeeded: Chairman-cum-Appellate Authority set aside the punishment dated 21.06.2003 and remanded the matter to the Disciplinary Authority for fresh disposal.¶14
Prior proceeding
Representation dated 10.02.2006 under Rule 54 for subsistence allowance and salary; Disciplinary Authority framed fresh charges of unauthorized credit sales and imposed punishment of recovery of shortage of raw material of Rs.7,26,289.48 (order dated 04.02.2006).¶15
Prior proceeding
Appeal filed 10.03.2006 against the order dated 04.02.2006 rejected by the Chairman-cum-Appellate Authority vide order dated 05.09.2006.¶15
Prior proceeding
Petitioner challenged the rejection before this Court in W.P.(C) No.15714 of 2007, also praying to quash suspension order dated 09.10.2001, charge sheet dated 01.11.2001, appellate order dated 05.09.2006 and additional charges vide order No.745 dated 04.02.2006.¶15
Prior proceeding
W.P.(C) No.15714 of 2007 disposed of on 09.11.2017 with a direction to the opposite parties to conclude the disciplinary proceeding within a stipulated period.¶17
Prior proceeding
After show-cause reply, disciplinary proceeding concluded by Office order dated 12.09.2018 imposing punishments.¶17
Prior proceeding
Punishment (i): recovery of outstanding amount of unauthorized credit sale of Rs.78,76,116.00 under Rule 48(1)(d) of the OSIC Employees Service Rule, 1979.¶18
Prior proceeding
Punishment (ii): stoppage of one increment of the petitioner with cumulative effect.¶19
Prior proceeding
Punishment (iii): suspension period 09.10.2001 to 03.05.2012 treated as leave.¶20
Prior proceeding
Appeal under Rule 48(1)(d) against the punishment dated 12.09.2018 allowed in favour of the petitioner vide Order No.1725/OSIC dated 27.05.2020 (stay application moved earlier before appellate authority had not been orders upon).¶21
Prior proceeding
Appellate order held the punishment dated 12.09.2018 (based on enquiry report dated 02.02.2014) unjustified and unsustainable and set it aside.¶22
Prior proceeding
Appellate Authority directed reconciliation of credit and recovery registers of Raw Material Depot/B.O. Keonjhar in presence of the DO within one month, with no recovery from salary till then.¶24
Prior proceeding
Despite pending stay application, the Corporation deducted Rs.4,379/- per month from October 2018 till April 2020.¶25
Prior proceeding
Chartered Accountant reported partial availability of ledgers and that the OSIC statement showed only debit balance of Rs.88,27,424,47 without considering credit balance of Rs.1,51,97,102.75.¶34
Prior proceeding
Chartered Accountant concluded that arriving at the correct position was not possible as relevant and important books of accounts and records were not available.¶35
Prior proceeding
This Court passed an order dated 26.07.2021 in W.P.(C) No.20494 of 2021 (which sought regularization, service benefits, promotion and refund of deductions with 12% interest).¶41
Prior proceeding
That order disposed of W.P.(C) No.20494 of 2021, without opinion on merits, directing opposite party no.2 to consider the petitioner's representation (Annexure-14) and pass appropriate order in accordance with law within three months.¶45
Prior proceeding
Thereafter a special audit was conducted; the Chartered Accountants issued a letter to General Manager (Finance), OSIC Limited on 25.04.2022.¶46
Prior proceeding
Special audit finding: providing the correct situation was not possible as relevant and important books of accounts and records were not available.¶46
Prior proceeding
An amount of Rs.78,822/- was due for refund to the petitioner per the chronology placed by his counsel, concurred in by counsel for the opposite parties.¶38
Prior proceeding
Even after the appellate order attained finality, the amount had not been refunded to the petitioner.¶40

Basanta Kumar Panigrahi v. Odisha Small Industries Corp. Ltd.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Basanta Kumar Panigrahi v. Odisha Small Industries Corp. Ltd.

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

Ashish Behera Vs R.T.O., Bbsr

Babuna Barik Vs a.R.T.O., Khurda

Kishan Chandra Bag Vs Chairman, Sta, Cuttack

Jhagudu Naik Vs Ahalya Rajahansa

Dr.Krishna Ch.Rath Vs Jyotirmayee Acharya

Utkal Electrocasting Vs Grid Co.