Dr. Bankim Chandra Pattanayak vs State Of Odisha And Others

M.S. Raman, J

This matter is taken up through Hybrid Mode.

Beseeching to show indulgence in the Memorandum of Charge vide No.2779-9v(P)-20/2012/FARD, dated 07.03.2014 issued by the Commissioner-cum-Secretary to the Government of Odisha in Fisheries and ARD Department (Annexure-7) and the Office Order bearing No.10492-9v(P) 28/2011/FARD, dated 04.09.2017 (Annexure-15) of the Government of Odisha in Fisheries and ARD Department imposing punishment for commission of alleged irregularities during the incumbency as CDVO, Angul, the petitioner approached learned Odisha Administrative Tribunal, Bhubaneswar invoking provisions of Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, which was registered as O.A. No.1783 of 2017.

2.1. Said O.A. has been transferred to this Court after abolition of said Odisha Administrative Tribunal and said case has been re-registered as WPC (OA) No.1783 of 2017.

It is alleged by Mr. Siba Prasad Pati, the learned counsel for the petitioner that at no stage of the Disciplinary Proceeding the petitioner was served with copy of the enquiry report, which goes to the root of the matter. He, therefore, urged that as a result of such non-service, flagrant violation of principles of natural justice having been occurred, the consequential result of the Disciplinary Proceeding also cannot be sustained.

3.1. At Ground No.(c) of paragraph-6.14 of the Original Application /writ petition, the petitioner has taken the following stance:-

“(c) For that, the copy of the enquiry report was not supplied to the applicant. No notice along with enquiry report under Rule-15(10)(i)(a) was served upon the applicant giving an opportunity to submit explanation against the findings of the Inquiring Authority. Copy of enquiry report was also not supplied to the applicant along with notice to show-cause on proposed punishment as required under the Rules. The applicant has been kept in dark about the evidences taken into record by the Inquiring authority and his findings basing upon which punishment is awarded. It is also a settled law that non-supply of enquiry report to the delinquent prior to punishment is illegal and violation of principle of natural justice.”

3.2. Sri Pati, learned counsel vehemently contended that the petitioner has been deprived of fair opportunity to defend his case for non-supply of the basic and foundational document, i.e., enquiry report.

3.3. The learned counsel for the petitioner drawing attention of this Court to the aforesaid paragraph, submitted that the petitioner cannot be allowed to suffer punishment for the laches of the authority concerned. It is urged by Sri Pati that even though Memorandum of Charge dated 07.03.2014 vide Annexure-7 was furnished to him, the petitioner has raised objection with regard to non-supply of enquiry report, but to no avail.

On 02.04.2024 upon hearing counsel for respective parties, this Court passed the following order:

“This matter is taken up through Hybrid mode.

Mr. Rabi Narayan Mishra, learned Additional Govt. Advocate for the State prays for two weeks’ time to obtain connected record to reply the contention of the learned counsel for the Petitioner that at no stage of disciplinary proceeding, the petitioner has been served with a copy of the enquiry report.

List this matter on 19.04.2024 on which date, Mr. Mishra, learned Additional Govt. Advocate shall produce the connected record of the disciplinary proceeding for perusal of the Court to satisfy as to whether the authority has complied with the principles of natural justice by serving copy of the enquiry report to the petitioner during the proceeding.”

Today, when the matter is taken up, Mr. Rabi Narayan Mishra, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the State fairly conceded that the record available with him has been verified and on perusal he could ascertain that the record does not reveal the fact of supply of copy of the enquiry report to the petitioner at any stage of the Disciplinary Proceeding. However, he opposing the contention of the counsel for the petitioner submitted that ample opportunity has been afforded to justify innocence against the Charges contained in the Memorandum. In the alternative, he would pray that in the aforesaid eventuality of non-supply of copy of the enquiry report, the matter can be relegated to the authority concerned for proceed further by complying with the principles of natural justice and to conclude the proceeding in accordance with law.

Considering the aforesaid submission of the learned counsel for the parties and on going through the materials available on record, this Court is of the opinion that the Office Order dated 04.09.2017 imposing punishment on the petitioner for commission of irregularities during his incumbency as CDVO, Angul to the effect that “an amount of Rs.1,97,995/- will be realised from Dr. Bankim Chandra Pattanayak from his T.I. (Pension) @ Rs.8,250/- per month for a period of two years under Rule 7 of OCS (Pension) Rules, 1992” cannot be held to be tenable in the eye of law, as the same is violative of principles of the natural justice. In such view of the matter, this Court is inclined, therefore, to set aside the impugned Office Order dated 04.09.2017 passed by the Government in Fisheries and ARD Department under Annexure-15. Consequently, the matter is remanded to the authority concerned in the Fisheries and ARD Department to proceed with the Disciplinary Proceeding in accordance with law after serving copy of enquiry report on the petitioner.

It is clarified that this Court has not expressed any view on the merit of the case. It is submitted at the Bar that the petitioner has since been retired on 30.04.2011 on attaining the age of superannuation. This Court hopes and trusts that the Disciplinary Proceeding shall be taken up at the earliest and the same be concluded as expeditiously as possible.

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

...…………………………….