Orissa High Court
Saroj Kumar Biswal vs Principal Secretary on 23 December, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
WPC(OA) No.262 Of 2017
(Through hybrid mode)
Saroj Kumar Biswal .... Applicant
Mr. S. Pratap, Advocate
-versus-
Principal Secretary, Forest and .... Respondents
Environment Deptt. and others
Mr. A.K. Sharma, AGA
CORAM: JUSTICE ARINDAM SINHA
ORDER
Order 23.12.2021
No.
14. 1. Mr. Pratap, learned advocate appears on behalf of applicant and
submits, his client was awarded punishment by impugned order dated
10th November, 2016. He submits, there was violation of procedure
given by rules 3 and 4 in Odisha Forest (Detection, Enquiry and
Disposal of Forest Offence) Rules, 1980. The procedural violation
goes to root of the matter. When considered in context of most of the
charges not having been proved in the enquiry, the punishment
awarded is not proportionate. He relies on judgment of Supreme Court
in P.V. Mahadevan vs. M.D., Tamil Nadu House Board reported in
(2005) 6 SCC 636, paragraphs 6 and 16.
// 2 //
2. Mr. Sharma, learned advocate, Additional Government
Advocate appears on behalf of State and submits, his client has filed
counter. The punishment is proportionate. Punishment awarded is
withholding of two increments with cumulative effect. There should
not be interference.
3. Perused the inquiry report forwarded under memo dated 31st
March, 2016. It deals with the charges. It appears from the report,
petitioner was given opportunity of making of his case in defence.
Several prosecution witnesses were examined and documents
tendered. Petitioner did not examine any witness. Written note of
statement of defence was submitted by petitioner.
4. Inquiry Officer found article of charge no.1 being negligence in
duty to be proved. Articles of charge nos. 2 and 3 regarding
suppression and connivance was held to be not proved. Article of
charge no.4 on petitioner being responsible for loss of government
property, the report says it was partly proved. Article 5 was charge of
lack of supervision and making false vouchers. This charge was found
to be not proved. Article of charge no.6 on petitioner was for having
connived with podu cultivators and was responsible for destruction of
fruits. The inquiry officer reported the charge to be partly proved.
// 3 //
Articles of charge nos. 7 and 8 alleging regular unauthorized absence
from headquarters and its disobedience charges were not proved.
5. Infraction of rules of procedure in the inquiry on the articles of
charge cannot be urged in support of challenge to the award of
punishment. The inquiry was held and second show cause duly issued
upon petitioner on consideration of his response against the proposed
punishment. Petitioner by his reply dated 10th June, 2016, to the
second show cause, stated his contentions for being exonerated against
those articles of charge that was held to be proved or partly proved.
Accordingly, he prayed for exoneration from all charges, implying that
there should be no punishment. By impugned order punishment
awarded was withholding of two increments with cumulative effect.
The challenge being directed against the punishment order, this Court
does not find that on the report of inquiry regarding the articles of
charge, the punishment awarded is disproportionate. P.V. Mahadevan
(supra) relied on by petitioner is of no aid to him because the judgment
was on challenge to charge memo issued against appellant. Reliefs
prayed for in the writ petition were to call for the records, quash the
charge memo and to forbear the respondent from in any manner
proceeding with the charge memo. Here the charges had resulted in
inquiry report and challenge is to the order of punishment.
// 4 //
6. There is no ground for interference.
7. The writ petition is dismissed.
(Arindam Sinha)
Judge
Sks
