Madhusudan Nayak Vs Principal Secy. to Govt. Tourism Dept. Paryatan

“Under such circumstance it is therefore prayed that your Lordships would be graciously pleased to admit this writ application, call for records and after hearing the parties may be pleased issue a writ/s/order/s/ direction/s/ in the nature of certiorari quashing the order of termination dt18.9.2021 issued by the Tourist officer Konark as well as the order of the Appellate authority dt-2001.2022 passed by the Principal Secretary to Govt. Tourism department, Bhubaneswar under Annexures- 8 & 10. Respectively.

¶13

And further may issue a writ of mandamus directing the authority to allow him to resume in his duty as a Mali in

¶14

Page 1 of 6.

¶15

the Tourist office Konark with all consequential benefits available to him under Law.

¶16

And further may pass any other order/s/direction as this Hon'ble court deems just and proper.

¶17

And for this act of kindness the petitioner as in duty bound shall ever pray.”

¶18

It is contended that in the proceeding initiated against the Petitioner vide Memorandum dtd.16.05.2019, Petitioner not only filed his written statement of defence but also participated in the enquiry. The enquiry officer after conducting the enquiry, submitted the report on 06.10.2020 under Annexure-7 with the following conclusion and recommendation:-

¶19

“Under the above facts and circumstances and as per the charges framed against Sri Madhusudan Nayak, Ex-Mai, Tourist Office, Konark (under suspension), it is found and established that Sri Nayak has submitted a forged T.C. in support of his educational qualification for getting Govt. Service, which is gross violation of Govt. Servant Conduct Rules and also a Criminal offence for which his has been arrested and ow under bail.

¶20

As such the Inquiring Officer is recommending Govt. may take proper action according to the law.”

¶21

4.1. It is contended that even though the proceeding in question was initiated under Rule 15 of OCS (CCA) Rules, 1962 (in short Rules), but after receipt of the enquiry report, Petitioner was never communicated with the 1^st show-cause and the 2^nd show-cause in terms of the provisions contained under Rule 15(10) of the aforesaid Rules.

¶22

Page 2 of 6.

¶23

4.2. It is contended that basing on the direction issued by the Govt. in the Tourism Department so issued vide letter dtd.29.07.2021, Petitioner was terminated from his services vide order dtd.10.09.2021 under Annexure-8. Even though Petitioner preferred an appeal against such order under Annexure-9, but the appellate authority without proper appreciation, rejected the appeal vide order dtd.20.01.2022 under Annexure-10.

¶24

4.3. Learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner contended that since after receipt of the enquiry report under Annexure-7, Petitioner was never issued with the 1^st & 2^nd show-cause in terms of Rule 15(10) of the Rules, the impugned order of punishment passed under Annexure-8 so confirmed by the appellate authority vide order under Annexure-10 are not sustainable in the eye of law. Rule 15(10) of the Rules reads as follows:-

¶25

“10) (i)(a) If the inquiring officer is not the disciplinary authority, the disciplinary authority shall furnish to the delinquent Government servant a copy of the report of the inquiring officer and give him notice by registered post or otherwise calling upon him to submit within a period of fifteen days such representation as he may wish to make against findings of the Inquiring Authority.

¶26

b) On receipt of the representation referred to in Sub-clause (a) th the disciplinary authority having regard to the findings on the charges. is of the opinion that any of the penalties specified in Clauses (vi) to (ix) of Rule 13 should be imposed, he shall furnish to the delinquent Government servant a statement of its findings along with brief reasons for disagreement, if any, with the findings of the inquiring officer and give him a notice by Registered post or otherwise stating the penalty proposed to be imposed on him and calling upon him to submit within a

¶27

Page 3 of 6.

¶28

specified time such representation as he may wish to make against the proposed penalty:

¶29

Provided that in every case in which it is necessary to consult the Commission under the provision of the Constitution of India and the Odisha Public Service Commission (Limitation of Functions) Regulation, 1989 the record of Inquiry together with a copy of the notice given under Sub-clause (a) and the representation if any, received within the specified time in response to such notice shall be forwarded by the disciplinary authority to the Commission for its advice.

¶30

(c) On receipt of the advice from the Commission the disciplinary authority shall consider the representation, if any, made by the Government Servant and the advice given by the Commission and shall pass appropriate orders in the case.

¶31

(d) In any case in which it is not necessary to consult the Odisha Public Service Commission, the disciplinary authority shall consider the representation, if any, made by the Government servant in response to the notice under Sub-Clause (b) and pass appropriate order in the case.]

¶32

[Provided that in every case in which it is necessary to consult the Commission under the provision of the Constitution of India and the Odisha Public Service Commission (Limitation of Functions) Regulation, 1989, the record of inquiry together with copies of the notices given under Sub-clauses (a) and (b) and the representations, if any, received in response thereto within the specified time shall be forwarded by the disciplinary authority to the Commission for its advice.]

¶33

(ii) The orders passed by the disciplinary authority shall be communicated to the Government servant, who shall also be supplied with a copy of the report of inquiring authority and where the disciplinary authority is not the inquiring authority, a

¶34

Page 4 of 6.

¶35

statement of its findings together with brief reasons for disagreement, if any, with the findings of the inquiring authority, as well as a copy of the advice of the Commission, where the Commission had been consulted, and brief statement of reasons for non-acceptance of the advice of the Commission, if the disciplinary authority has not accepted such advice.”

¶36

Mr. S.P. Das, learned Addl. Standing Counsel on the other hand while supporting the impugned order, made his submission basing on the stand taken in the counter affidavit so filed by Opp. Party Nos. 2 & 4. Placing reliance on the said counter affidavit, it is contended that since in the enquiry, Petitioner was found guilty of the charges, the enquiry officer recommended for imposition of proper punishment by the Govt.. Basing on such enquiry report, Govt.-Opp. Party No. 1 vide letter dtd.29.07.2021 directed Opp. Party No. 4 to dispose of the proceeding. Basing on such letter issued by the Govt.Opp. Party No. 1 on 29.07.2021, Petitioner was imposed with the punishment vide order under Annexure-8. It is also contended that order of punishment passed by the disciplinary authority has been confirmed by the Govt. vide order under Annexure-10. It is accordingly contended that no illegality or irregularity can be found with the impugned order.

¶37

Having heard learned counsel appearing for the Parties and considering the submission made, this Court finds that the proceeding in question was initiated against the Petitioner vide Memorandum dtd.16.05.2019 so enclosed to the Memo dtd.04.12.2025 under Rule 15 of the Rules.

¶38

6.1. This Court after going through the order of punishment passed under Annexure-8, finds that in the said proceeding the enquiry

¶39

Page 5 of 6.

¶40

officer submitted the report on 06.10.2020 under Annexure-7. However, it is found that without issuing the 1^st & 2^nd show-cause in terms of Rule 15(10) of the Rules, basing on the order issued by the Govt. on 29.07.2021, Petitioner was terminated from his services vide order dtd.18.09.2021 under Annexure-8 of Opp. Party No. 4. Appeal filed by the Petitioner before Opp. Party No. 1 under Annexure-9 was rejected vide order dtd.20.01.2022 under Annexure10.

¶41

6.2. Since it is found from the record that prior to imposing the punishment of dismissal, Petitioner was never issued with the 1^st & 2^nd show-cause in terms of Rule 15(10) of the Rules, it is the view of this Court that the impugned order of termination passed under Annexure-8 so confirmed vide order under Annexure-10 are not sustainable in the eye of law. While quashing both the orders, this Court remits the matter to Opp. Party No. 4 to take up the proceeding from the stage of issuance of notice in terms of Rule 15(10) of the Rules and dispose of the proceeding in accordance with law as expeditiously as possible, preferably by the end of June 2026. Petitioner is directed to cooperate for disposal of the proceeding.

¶42

The writ petition accordingly stands disposed of with the aforesaid observation and direction.

¶43

(BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY) Judge

¶44

Sneha

¶45

Signature Not Verified

¶46

Digitally Signed Signed by: SNEHANJALI PARIDA Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, C utta ck Date: 30-Jan-2026 17:16:39

¶47

Page 6 of 6.

Madhusudan Nayak v. Principal Secy. to Govt. Tourism Dept. Paryatan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Madhusudan Nayak v. Principal Secy. to Govt. Tourism Dept. Paryatan

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

Bhumisuta Sunani Vs State of Odisha

Trinath Pujari Vs State of Odisha

Ananta Parua Vs State of Odisha

Sugyan Kumari Devi Vs Aswathy S, I.A.S.

Sudhir Khsyatri Vs State of Odisha

Dharitri Sahu Vs State of Odisha