Pramod Kumar Swain Vs O.S.R.T.C,Chairman

ORISSA HIGH COURT : CUTTACK

W.P.(C) No.10043 of 2018

In the matter of an Application under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India, 1950

Sri Pramod Kumar Swain, Aged about 55 years, Son of Late Bhramarbar Swain, At: Mukamswar, P.O.: Uttamapur, P.S.: Cuttack Sadar District: Cuttack, At present working as Conductor OSRTC, Cuttack, At/P.O.: Badambadi, P.O: Arunoday Nagar, P.S.: Madhupatna, District: Cuttack. … Petitioner

¶6

-VERSUS-

¶7

1. Orissa State Road Transport Corporation, represented through its Chairman-cum-Managing Director, O.S.R.T.C., Paribahan Bhawan, Old Bus Stand, Bhubaneswar, District-Khurda.

¶8

2. General Manager (Admn.), O.S.R.T.C., Paribahan Bhawan, Old Bus Stand, Bhubaneswar, District: Khurda.

¶9

W.P.(C) No.10043 of 2018

¶10

Page 1 of 24

¶11

3. District Transport Manager, OSRTC, Cuttack, At/P.O.: Badambadi, P.O.: Arunoday Nagar, P.S.: Madhupatna, District: Cuttack. … Opposite Parties.

¶12

Counsel appeared for the parties:

¶13

For the Petitioner : Mr. Kamala Kanta Nayak, Advocate

¶14

For the Opposite Parties : Mr. Amitav Tripathy, Advocate

¶15

P R E S E N T:

¶16

HONOURABLE

¶17

MR. JUSTICE MURAHARI SRI RAMAN

¶18

Date of Hearing : 18.03.2025 :: Date of Judgment : 18.03.2025

¶19

JUDGMENT

¶20

Assailing Order No.6464/OSRTC, Dc-04/18, dated 10.05.2018 under Anneuxre-7 passed by the General Manager (A), Odisha State Road Transport CorporationOpposite Party No.2, rejecting the appeal thereby confirming the punishment imposed vide Memo No.6(c), dated 31.08.2017 under Annexure-5 issued by the District Transport Manager (A), Odisha State Road Transport Corporation, Cuttack-Opposite Party No.3, the petitioner has approached this Court by way of filing this writ petition craving to invoke extraordinary jurisdiction

¶21

W.P.(C) No.10043 of 2018

¶22

Page 2 of 24

¶23

of this Court under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India with the following prayer(s):

¶24

“The humble petitioner under the above fact and circumstances most humbly prays that Your Lordship may be graciously pleased to issue notice to the opposite parties as to why the prayer made in the writ Application as to why the order No.6 dated 31.08.2017 (vide Annexure-3) passed by the District Transport Manager, OSRTC, Cuttack and order No.6465 dated 10.05.2018 passed by the Appellate Authority will not be quashed and if the opposite parties fail to show cause or filed insufficient show cause, your Lordships may be graciously pleased to pass order to quash the order dated 31.08.2017 (vide Annexure-5) and order dated 10.05.2018 (vide Annexure-7) and/or pass any other order/direction or writ according to the facts and circumstances of the case.”

¶25

Facts:

¶26

2. The Petitioner, Conductor of the Bus bearing Registration No.OD-02-H-217 plying between CuttackMeghajodi route, faced checking of said bus on 22.10.2015 by Sri Gopal Prasad Jena, Law Officer of the Odisha State Road Transport Corporation (in short, “OSRTC”) along with Sri P.D.K. Patra, Audit Assistant.

¶27

2.1. The Checking Officer reported that sixty-seven passengers were present in the said bus without tickets at the time of checking, consequent upon which, Departmental Proceeding was initiated by the District

¶28

W.P.(C) No.10043 of 2018

¶29

Page 3 of 24

¶30

Transport Manager, Cuttack-Opposite Party No.3 vide Memo No.4432, dated 30.12.2015.

¶31

2.2. The written explanation was submitted on 18.01.2016, wherein it was apprised that on 22.10.2015, i.e ., the date of checking, there was Thakurani Jatra and local passengers were travelling to the Puja Mandap . Since it was the practice that the passengers are allowed to enter the bus even without ticket and they are issued with the ticket afterwards, the conductor of the bus allowed the bus to move before issue of tickets are completed.

¶32

2.3. The District Transport Manager-Opposite Party No.3, as per the writ Petitioner, without considering the explanation in its right earnest on the basis of enquiry report submitted initiated disciplinary proceeding.

¶33

2.4. The District Transport Manager, OSRTC-Disciplinary Authority held the charges levelled against the Petitioner partly proved, though disagreed with the finding of the Enquiry Officer and vide order dated 31.08.2017 under Annexure-5 passed the following order:

¶34

“Perused the enquiry report of Sri P.K. Swain, Conductor which is submitted by the E.O.-cum-S.I. OSRTC, Cuttack on 28.7.17 all other connecting records relating to the proceeding drawn up against him vide No.4431 dt.30.12.15. The views of the E.O. is that the charges framed against the conductor is partly proved but conductor is liable for punishment for non-issue of

¶35

W.P.(C) No.10043 of 2018

¶36

Page 4 of 24

¶37

maximum ticket out of total passenger were travelled in the said bus so also inadequate maintenance of checking procedure at the time of check by the checking officer. In this regard I do not fully agree with the views the E.O. It is a case of carriage 67 without tickets passenger in Cuttack-Meghajholi express bus No.OD-02-H-2171 on 22.10.15. The plea taken by the delinquent conductor through his explanation dt.19.1.16 & during inquiry so also at personal hearing is after thought as absence of cleaner, forcefully entry of passenger to the bus is not accepted without issuing of tickets to them. The checking officer has checked the bus as per Govt. rule-8/64 & O.S.R.T.C. rule. He has endorsed the checking particular in the ticket book used by the conductor & obtained signature of the crews as admittance to the fact. The conductor has also admitted the he has allowed to passenger to enter into the bus to augment more revenue of O.S.R.T.C. on account of Dashara festival in absence of private bus. This fact is also admitted by the steering driver Sri Pramod Kumar Mohapatra, Cont. driver on duty. So presence of without ticket passenger at the time of check is a fact for which the conductor has violated the corporate rule which tentamount to misconduct as per rule-136(69) of OSRTC (C.R. & C.S.) Regulation. So I hold him guilty of the charges & deserves measure punishment like removal for service. The past anticident is not also good.

¶38

Again since the checking officer has checked the bus at 6 km. from Berhampur Main bus stop which is nearby Municipality area and both conductor & driver were picked up the intending passenger from town area for Dasahara festival so also want of required evidence for prosecution side which are cited by the delinquent conductor, lenient views is taken to dispose the

¶39

W.P.(C) No.10043 of 2018

¶40

Page 5 of 24

¶41

proceeding imposing the following punishment. Sri P.K. Swain, conductor has already re-instated to his former post earlier.

¶42

1) The period of suspension is treated as such.

¶43

2) The pay is reduced to minimum for a period of one year.

¶44

3) The penalty & usual amount against 67 passenger without ticket Rs.25,125/- is ordered for recover from his dues & no M.V. fine will be recovered for him as checking officer did not impose the same at the time of check.

¶45

4) The representation of similar offence & misconduct in future will be treated as last chance for his continuation in service.”

¶46

2.5. Aggrieved thereby, the Petitioner preferred appeal, which stood rejected vide order No.6464/OSRTC, Dc-04/18, dated 10.05.2018 under Annexure-7 confirming the order of punishment passed by the Disciplinary Authority under Annexure-5 and the appellate authority passed the following order:-

¶47

“ After careful perusal & on examination of the connected records, the order passed by D.T.M.(A)OSRTC, Cuttack, it is found that the required procedure has been followed & due opportunity has been given to the petitioner to defend his case before awarding the punishment & disposal of the proceedings. More so, during entire service period, Sri Pramod Kumar Swain, delinquent Conductor, has been placed under suspension & proceeded against as many as 10 occasions for committing misconduct.

¶48

W.P.(C) No.10043 of 2018

¶49

Page 6 of 24

¶50

Hence, the order passed by the D.T.M.(A), Cuttack vide his order No.05 dt.31.08.17 holds good.

¶51

The appeal petition is rejected accordingly.”

¶52

2.6. Dissatisfied, the Petitioner has approached this Court by way of filing this writ petition invoking extraordinary jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India.

¶53

Rival contentions and submissions:

¶54

3. Sri Kamalakanta Nayak, learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner vehemently contended that Office Order vide Memo No.6(c), dated 31.08.2017 cannot be countenanced inasmuch as flagrant violation of principles of natural justice is writ large on the face of the record.

¶55

3.1. Emphasizing that when the Disciplinary Authority sought to disagree with the views expressed in the enquiry report, it is incumbent upon the said authority to afford opportunity of hearing by inviting explanation on the point of dissention. In absence of such course being followed by the District Transport Manager (A), OSRTC, the Office Order dated 31.08.2017 is liable to be interfered with by this Court.

¶56

3.2. It is vehemently contended that though clear stance has been taken by way of appeal petition addressed to the

¶57

W.P.(C) No.10043 of 2018

¶58

Page 7 of 24

¶59

General Manager (A), OSRTC, Bhubaneswar-Appellate Authority, stating “are not acceptable” with bald and unreasoned order simply it is observed that “the required procedure has been followed and due opportunity has been given to the petitioner to defend his case before awarding the punishment and disposal of the proceedings”. The Appellate Authority having not touched each ground of explanation in its proper perspective, the order of rejection of appeal dated 10.05.2018 warrants indulgence.

¶60

3.3. He further submitted that an order passed by both the authorities without stating the reason for action is direct violation of the principles of natural justice. Any subsequent explanation cannot sanctify the order. An order bereft of reasons fails to meet the basic ingredients of principles of natural justice and is, therefore, inherently flawed, rendering it indefensible.

¶61

4. Sri Amitav Tripathy, learned counsel appearing for the Opposite Parties refuting the contentions and averments of the writ petitioner, submitted that at each stage of proceeding, the Petitioner was afforded opportunity to have his say and his written explanation was duly considered during the course of the disciplinary proceeding.

¶62

W.P.(C) No.10043 of 2018

¶63

Page 8 of 24

¶64

4.1. Learned counsel appearing for the Opposite Parties strenuously contended that there is no flaw in following the procedure by neither the Disciplinary Authority nor the Appellate Authority particularly when it is admitted fact that at the time of checking, the passengers were not issued with tickets.

¶65

Hearing:

¶66

5. Pleadings, being completed and exchanged between the learned counsel for respective parties, on their consent, this matter is taken up for final hearing.

¶67

5.1. Accordingly, heard Sri Kamalakanta Nayak, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri Amitav Tripathy, learned Additional Standing Counsel appearing for the opposite parties.

¶68

Discussion and conclusion:

¶69

6. Perused the record, diligently considered the rival contentions. On careful reading of Office Order vide Memo No.6(c), dated 31.08.2017 under Annexure-5, it is revealed that:

¶70

“*** perused the report of Sri P.K. Swain, Conductor, which is submitted by the E.O.-cum-SI, OSRTC, Cuttack on 28.07.2017 and all other connecting records relating to the proceeding drawn up against him vide Memo No.4431 dt.30.12.2015. The views of the E.O. is that the charges framed against the conductor is partly proved but the

¶71

W.P.(C) No.10043 of 2018

¶72

Page 9 of 24

¶73

conductor is liable for punishment for non-issue of maximum ticket out of total passenger were travelled in the said bus so also inadequate maintenance of checking procedure at the time of check by the checking officer. In this regard I do not fully agree with the views of the E.O. It is a case of carriage 67 without tickets passenger in Cuttack-Meghajholi express bus No.OD02-H-2171 on 22.10.2015. The plea taken by the delinquent conductor through his explanation dated 19.01.2016 and during inquiry so also at personal hearing is after-thought as absence of cleaner, forcefully entry of passengers to the bus is not accepted without issuing of tickets to them”.

¶74

6.1. As it appears from the aforesaid observation of the Disciplinary Authority that he did not agree with the views of the Enquiry Officer. Material on record does not disclose that the Disciplinary Authority has given a chance to the Petitioner to contradict while taking dissenting view other than the enquiry report.

¶75

6.2. It is well-nigh settled that if the Disciplinary Authority differs with the finding of the Enquiry Officer, he is duty bound to ascribe reasons for disagreement. In this respect, the following observation of this Court in the case of Sri Dandapani Muli Vrs. Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal, Bhubaneswar and others, 2011 (I) OLR 721, as on relied by the learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner, is apposite. In the said reported case, it has been observed as follows:

¶76

W.P.(C) No.10043 of 2018

¶77

Page 10 of 24

¶78

“Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that while adjudicating a petition under Section 33(2)(b) of the I.D. Act, it is the primary duty of the tribunal to enquire whether the principle of natural justice had beer followed in the domestic inquiry. In the present case, the enquiry officer held that charge No.1 was partly proved and charge No.2 was proved but the disciplinary authority differed with his finding holding that charge No.1 was also proved. So, it was the duty of the disciplinary authority to record its tentative reasons for disagreement and call for an explanation on the same from the petitioner. But it has not been done so. So, the order of dismissal passed by the disciplinary authority under Annexure-5 deserves to be quashed, as there was violation of natural justice. In support of his submission, learned counsel for the petitioner relied on the decisions in the case of Purna Chandra Pattnaik Vrs. State of Orissa and two others, 2009 (I) OLR 243, S.B.I. and others Vrs. Arvind Kumar Shukla, AIR 2001 SC 2398 and Rushi Guman Singh Vrs. State of Orissa and others, 2008 (II) OLR 201. On the other hand, learned counsel for the Opposite Party-management supported both the orders passed under Annexures-5 & 6.

¶79

In the decision Purna Chandra Pattnaik (supra), a division bench of this Court held that:

¶80

„if the competent authority does not agree with the inquiry officer, he must record reasons for disengagement and supply the same to the delinquent to file his comments/objections. Otherwise, the order would stand vitiated for noncompliance of the principles of natural justice.‟

¶81

In the decision S.B.I. and others (supra), the Apex Court held that the disciplinary authority is required to record

¶82

W.P.(C) No.10043 of 2018

¶83

Page 11 of 24

¶84

its tentative reasons for disengagement with the enquiry officer and to communicate the said reasons to the delinquent to represent, before it records its ultimate finding. In the case of Rushi Guman Singh Vrs. State of Odisha, 2008 (II) OLR 201 (supra), this Court has also taken the same view.”

¶85

6.3. It may be pertinent to have regard to the following observation made by a Division Bench of this Court in the case of Jagannath Sahoo Vrs. State of Orissa and others, 1986 (I) OLR-342, wherein it has been held as follows:

¶86

“ It is not a case where the petitioner had admitted the allegations made against him. Not even an enquiry was conducted into the allegations made against the petitioner after he showed cause and no statements were recorded. Rule 15(4) of the Orissa Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1962 provides:

¶87

„On receipt of the written statement of defence or, if no such statement is received within the time specified, the disciplinary authority may itself inquire 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 inquiring officer for the purpose.‟

¶88

Admittedly, this rule had not been complied with. Thus serious prejudice had been caused to the petitioner by the non-compliance of the rule relating to the enquiry into the allegations made against him and the petitioner was condemned unheard.”

¶89

6.4. As is apparent from the Office Order dated 31.08.2017 under Annexure-5 that the Disciplinary Authority has

¶90

W.P.(C) No.10043 of 2018

¶91

Page 12 of 24

¶92

abruptly jumped to the conclusion in order to impose punishment on the petitioner without discussing as to why he has discarded the written explanation proffer by the Petitioner and disagreed with the views of the Enquiry Officer.

¶93

6.5. In such view of the matter, this Court is of the considered view that the Office Order dated 31.08.2017 under Annexure-5 is liable to be quashed.

¶94

7. Having gone through the order in appeal passed by the General Manager (A) under Annexure-7 on 10.05.2018, it is seen that the following reason has been assigned to:

¶95

“ After careful perusal & on examination of the connected records, the order passed by D.T.M.(A)OSRTC, Cuttack, it is found that the required procedure has been followed & due opportunity has been given to the petitioner to defend his case before awarding the punishment & disposal of the proceedings. More so, during entire service period, Sri Pramod Kumar Swain, delinquent Conductor, has been placed under suspension and proceeded against as many as 10 occasions for committing misconduct.

¶96

Hence, the order passed by the D.T.M.(A), Cuttack vide his order No.05 dt.31.08.17 holds good.

¶97

The appeal petition is rejected accordingly.”

¶98

7.1. Scrutiny of appellate order does not also demonstrate that an opportunity of personal hearing was given to the Petitioner. The contention of the learned counsel appearing for the Opposite Parties that there was

¶99

W.P.(C) No.10043 of 2018

¶100

Page 13 of 24

¶101

compliance of principles of natural justice as the Petitioner was given opportunity of hearing during the course of enquiry. However, it is not disputed that no opportunity was given in course of hearing of the appeal nor was he given opportunity to present his case before the Disciplinary Authority.

¶102

7.2. Rejecting such contention of the learned counsel for the Opposite Parties, it is appropriate to observe that mere calling for explanation without affording opportunity of personal hearing while passing order prejudicial to the interest of the Petitioner would not suffice compliance of principles of natural justice.

¶103

7.3. In Swadeshi Cotton Mills Vrs. Union of India, (1981) 1 SCC 664 it has been lucidly explained the meaning and scope of the concept of „natural justice‟. It is stated:

¶104

“26. Well then, what is “natural justice”? The phrase is not capable of a static and precise definition. It cannot be imprisoned in the straight-jacket of a castiron formula. Historically, “natural justice” has been used in a way “which implies the existence of moral principles of self-evident and unarguable truth”. [ Paul Jackson : Natural Justice, 2nd Edn., p 1] In course of time, Judges nurtured in the traditions of British jurisprudence, often invoked it in conjunction with a reference to “equity and good conscience”. Legal experts of earlier generations did not draw any distinction between “natural justice” and “natural law”. “Natural justice” was considered as

¶105

W.P.(C) No.10043 of 2018

¶106

Page 14 of 24

¶107

“that part of natural law which relates to the administration of justice”. Rules of natural justice are not embodied rules. Being means to an end and not an end in themselves, it is not possible to make an exhaustive catalogue of such rules.

¶108

27. But two fundamental maxims of natural justice have now become deeply and indelibly ingrained in the common consciousness of mankind, as preeminently necessary to ensure that the law is applied impartially, objectively and fairly. Described in the form of Latin tags these twin principles are:

¶109

(i) audi alteram partem and

¶110

(ii) nemo judex in re sua.

¶111

For the purpose of the question posed above, we are primarily concerned with the first. This principle was well-recognised even in the ancient world. Seneca, the philosopher, is said to have referred in Medea that it is unjust to reach a decision without a full hearing. In Maneka Gandhi case, (1978) 1 SCC 405 = (1978) 2 SCR 272, Bhagwati, J. emphasised that audi alteram partem is a highly effective rule devised by the courts to ensure that a statutory authority arrives at a just decision and it is calculated to act as a healthy check on the abuse or misuse of power. Hence its reach should not be narrowed and its applicability circumscribed.

¶112

***

¶113

31. The rules of natural justice can operate only in areas not covered by any law validly made. They can supplement the law but cannot supplant it (per Hedge, J. in A.K. Kraipak, (1975) 1 SCC 421 =

¶114

W.P.(C) No.10043 of 2018

¶115

Page 15 of 24

¶116

(1975) 3 SCR 619). If a statutory provision either specifically or by inevitable implication excludes the application of the rules of natural justice, then the court cannot ignore the mandate of the legislature. Whether or not the application of the principles of natural justice in a given case has been excluded, wholly or in part, in the exercise of statutory power, depends upon the language and basic scheme of the provision conferring the power, the nature of the power, the purpose for which it is conferred and the effect of the exercise of that power. (see Union of India Vrs. Col. J.N. Sinha, (1969) 2 All ER 1207)

¶117

32. The maxim audi alteram partem has many facets. Two of them are:

¶118

(a) notice of the case to be met; and

¶119

(b) opportunity to explain.

¶120

This rule is universally respected and duty to afford a fair hearing in Lord Lore-burn‟s oft-quoted language, is “a duty lying upon everyone who decides something”, in the exercise of legal power. The rule cannot be sacrificed at the altar of administrative convenience or celerity; for, “convenience and justice”— as Lord Atkin felicitously put it— “are often not on speaking terms [General Medical Council Vrs. Spackman, 1943 AC 627, 638”.

¶121

***

¶122

44. In short, the general principle — as distinguished from an absolute rule of uniform application — seems to be that where a statute does not, in terms, exclude this rule of prior hearing but contemplates a

¶123

W.P.(C) No.10043 of 2018

¶124

Page 16 of 24

¶125

post-decisional hearing amounting to a full review of the original order on merits, then such a statute would be construed as excluding the audi alteram partem rule at the pre-decisional stage. Conversely, if the statute conferring the power is silent with regard to the giving of a pre-decisional hearing to the person affected and the administrative decision taken by the authority involves civil consequences of a grave nature, and no full review or appeal on merits against that decision is provided, courts will be extremely reluctant to construe such a statute as excluding the duty of affording even a minimal hearing shorn of all its formal trappings and dilatory features at the pre-decisional stage, unless, viewed pragmatically, it would paralyse the administrative progress or frustrate the need for utmost promptitude. In short, this rule of fair play “must not be jettisoned save in very exceptional circumstances where compulsive necessity so demands”. The court must make every effort to salvage this cardinal rule to the maximum extent possible, with situational modifications. But, to recall the words of Bhagwati, J., the core of it must, however, remain, namely, that the person affected must have reasonable opportunity of being heard and the hearing must be a genuine hearing and not an empty public relations exercise.”

¶126

7.4. This Court feels persuaded to reproduce the observation of a Division Bench of this Court made in the case of M/s. Sponge Udyot Pvt. Ltd. Vrs. The Asst. Commissioner of Sales Tax, Rourkela-II Circle, Rourkela, 2010 SCC OnLine Ori 68:

¶127

W.P.(C) No.10043 of 2018

¶128

Page 17 of 24

¶129

“5. Admittedly before issuance of the order of suspension, the petitioner had not been served with any notice to show cause. Admittedly there is no provision in the Act or the Rules for service of a notice to show cause before an order of suspension is passed. Under these circumstances, the Court is called upon to decide as to whether a notice in the present case is required to be served on the petitioner to show cause before the order of suspension was passed or not. In the case of M/s. Ramkumar Jaigopal Vrs. Assistant Commissioner of Sales Tax, Sambalpur, the challenge was in relation to cancellation of registration certificate. The petitioner therein was a registered dealer under the Sales Tax authorities for more than 58 years and without giving an opportunity of hearing, the registration certificate was cancelled. The Court not only dealt with Section 31 of the Act dealing with cancellation of certificate of registration but also Section 30 of the Act which dealing with suspension of registration certificate. In paragraph-8 of the judgment relying on an earlier decision of the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in the case of Smt. Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India and another, reported in AIR 1978 SC 597, the Court made the following observation:

¶130

„***

¶131

It must be kept in mind that the power of suspension/cancellation of registration certificate of a dealer, clearly imposes civil consequence and in this respect law is well settled in the case of Smt. Maneka Gandhi Vrs. Union of India and another reported in AIR 1978 SC 597 wherein, the Apex

¶132

W.P.(C) No.10043 of 2018

¶133

Page 18 of 24

¶134

Court has held that the rule of natural justice is embodied in every Statute and even where there is no specific provision for the same and when an administrative action involves civil consequence, the doctrine of natural justice must be held to be applicable.‟

¶135

6. As is evident from reading of the judgment though the case related to cancellation of registration certificate, the Court not only considered the question of cancellation of registration certificate but also suspension thereof and came to hold that the power of suspension/cancellation of registration certificate of a dealer clearly imposes civil consequence and therefore, even where there is no specific provision to follow the principles of natural justice, when an administrative action involves civil consequence, the doctrine of natural justice must be held to be applicable.

¶136

In the case of Sidhartha Engineering Pvt. Ltd. Vrs. Assistant Commissioner of Sales Tax and another, (1999) 115 Sales Tax Cases 478 in paragraph-8 of the judgment, the Court held that natural justice is an inseparable ingredient of fairness and reasonableness. Observance of the principles is the pragmatic requirement of fair play in action. The rules of natural justice operate as implied mandatory procedural requirement and nonobservance whereof invalidates the action.

¶137

Reference may also be made to some other decisions in this connection. In the case of Sahara India (Firm) Vrs. Commissioner of Income-Tax and another, reported in (2008) 300 ITR 403 (SC) referring to large number of earlier decisions including the case of

¶138

W.P.(C) No.10043 of 2018

¶139

Page 19 of 24

¶140

Maneka Gandhi (Mrs.) v. Union of India (supra), the Hon‟ble Supreme Court came to a conclusion that even an administrative order or decision in matters involving civil consequences has to be made consistently with the rules of natural justice. The concept of natural justice is invariably read into administrative actions involving civil consequences, unless the statute conferring the power excludes its application by express language. A similar view was expressed by this Court in the case of M/s. Iron Exchange India Ltd. Vrs. State of Orissa and others, reported in 1995 (I) OLR 402. The Court held in the aforesaid decision that principle of natural justice must be read into unoccupied interstices of the statute unless there is a clear mandate to the contrary. Such power is inherent in every Tribunal, judicial or quasi-judicial character and the purpose is to avoid miscarriage of justice. In the case of Basanta Kumar Sahoo Vrs. The State of Orissa and others, reported in 1990 (II) OLR 408 while dealing with the case under the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976, the Court held that where valuable right is sought to be taken away, an opportunity of hearing though not specifically provided in the Act, is desirable to be given. In the case of Kanak Cement Pvt. Ltd. Vrs. Sales Tax Officer, Assessment Unit, Rajgangpur, reported in (1997) 105 Sales Tax Cases 112, the Court observed that it is a fundamental requirement of the principles of natural justice that if any person is likely to be affected by the use of any material collected by the Revenue, those are to be brought to his notice, and disclosed to him. The requirement of natural justice is to disclose by way of confrontation the materials collected and proposed to be used against a dealer.

¶141

W.P.(C) No.10043 of 2018

¶142

Page 20 of 24

¶143

Admitted in the Act and the Rules, though there is no provision for affording an opportunity of hearing before an order of suspension is passed, the said principle of natural justice has also not been expressly excluded.

¶144

7. On reading of above judgments, it is clear that even in respect of suspension of registration certificate, civil consequence follows and therefore, observance of principle of natural justice is a necessity. We are, therefore, of the view that even though the statute is silent about issuance of a notice to show cause prior to passing of an order of suspension under Section 30 of the Act, when such order of suspension results in civil consequences, the principles of natural justice should be followed. We are, therefore, of the view that the order of suspension of registration certificate is liable to be quashed even though it is open for the petitioner under the Act to seek for restoration of the same.”

¶145

7.5. The Essential feature of the principles of natural justice as established by exposition of law by way of different pronouncements is that the administrative officer and the quasi judicial authority are required to assign reason and adhere to principles of natural justice, one of the facets of which is audi alteram partem .

¶146

7.6. At this stage, it is also felt expedient to refer to the following observation of the Hon‟ble Supreme Court, in the matter of Steel Authority of India Limited Vrs. Sales Tax Officer, (2008) 10 SCR 655 = 2008 INSC 799 :

¶147

W.P.(C) No.10043 of 2018

¶148

Page 21 of 24

¶149

“12. A bare reading of the order shows complete nonapplication of mind. As rightly pointed out by learned counsel for the appellant, this is not the way a statutory appeal is to be disposed of. Various important questions of law were raised. Unfortunately, even they were not dealt by the first appellate authority.

¶150

13. Reason is the heartbeat of every conclusion. It introduces clarity in an order and without the same it becomes lifeless. [See Raj Kishore Jha Vrs. State of Bihar, (2003) 11 SCC 519].

¶151

14. Even in respect of administrative orders Lord Denning, M.R. in Breen Vrs. Amalgamated Engg. Union, (1971) 1 All ER 1148, observed:

¶152

„The giving of reasons is one of the fundamentals of good administration.‟

¶153

In Alexander Machinery (Dudley) Ltd. Vrs. Crabtree 1974 ICR 120 (NIRC) it was observed:

¶154

“Failure to give reasons amounts to denial of justice.” “Reasons are live links between the mind of the decision-taker to the controversy in question and the decision or conclusion arrived at.” Reasons substitute subjectivity by objectivity. The emphasis on recording reasons is that if the decision reveals the “inscrutable face of the sphinx”, it can, by its silence, render it virtually impossible for the courts to perform their appellate function or exercise the power of judicial review in adjudging the validity of the decision. Right to reason is an indispensable part of a sound judicial system; reasons at least sufficient to indicate an

¶155

W.P.(C) No.10043 of 2018

¶156

Page 22 of 24

¶157

application of mind to the matter before court. Another rationale is that the affected party can know why the decision has gone against him. One of the salutary requirements of natural justice is spelling out reasons for the order made; in other words, a speaking-out. The “inscrutable face of the sphinx” is ordinarily incongruous with a judicial or quasi judicial performance.”

¶158

7.7. Where the fact finding authority has acted without any evidence or upon a view of the facts which could not reasonably be entertained or the facts found were such that no person acting judicially and properly instructed as to the relevant law could have found, the Court is entitled to interfere. See, Lalchand Bhagat Ambica Ram Vrs. CIT, (1959) 37 ITR 288 (SC) .

¶159

7.8. Conspectus of above discussion would lead to irresistible conclusion that neither the Disciplinary Authority nor has the Appellate Authority followed the basic tenets of natural justice, as a consequent of which the Office Order No.6(c), dated 31.08.2017 under Annexure-5 and Order No.6464/OSRTC, Dc-04/18, dated 10.05.2018 under Annexure-7 are liable to be quashed as both the authorities have failed to assigned reason for disagreement with the views of the Enquiry Officer and afford opportunity of hearing to the Petitioner.

¶160

7.9. Having regard to the age of the petitioner, remanding the matter for fresh proceeding would not serve any purpose

¶161

W.P.(C) No.10043 of 2018

¶162

Page 23 of 24

¶163

in order to afford opportunity of hearing. The incident leading to initiation of disciplinary proceeding was of the year 2015. Thus, this Court is inclined to show indulgence in the orders impugned.

¶164

8. The Orders dated 31.08.2017 and 10.05.2018 under Annexures-5 & 7 are, hereby, quashed.

¶165

9. In the result, the writ petition is allowed but in the circumstances there shall be no orders as to costs.

¶166

(MURAHARI SRI RAMAN)

¶167

JUDGE

¶168

High Court of Orissa, Cuttack The 18^h March, 2025//Laxmikant

¶169

Signature Not Verified

¶170

Digitally Signed Signed by: LAXMIKANT MOHAPATRA Designation: Senior Stenographer Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Date: 19-Mar-2025 17:56:28

¶171

W.P.(C) No.10043 of 2018

¶172

Page 24 of 24

Pramod Kumar Swain v. O.S.R.T.C,Chairman

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pramod Kumar Swain v. O.S.R.T.C,Chairman

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

Binita Nayak Vs Secretary,Taluk Legal Services Committee,Civil Court,Khurda

Narottam Mohanty Vs State of Odisha and Ors.

Rabindra Nath Barik Vs State of Odisha

Rashmi Prava Pradhan Vs State of Odisha

Tarapada Senapati Vs Manima Rani Ghosh

Rajashree Dash@Panda Vs Jyotikanta Panda