Orissa High Court
Budhimanta Mallik vs State Of Orissa And Another on 22 March, 2021
W.P.(C) No.18724 of 2018
1
Present: SHRI S. K. MISHRA, J
AND
MISS SAVITRI RATHO, J
....................................................................
Budhimanta Mallik ...... Petitioner.
- Versus-
State of Orissa and Another ...... Opposite Parties.
For Petitioner : Mr. C. R. Patnaik
For Opposite Parties : Mr. L. Samantaray,
Addl. Government Advocate
4. 22.03.2021 This matter is taken up through Hybrid mode.
Heard learned counsel for the sole Petitioner and learned
Additional Government Advocate.
In this writ petition, the Petitioner a former Police
Constable, having being dismissed by the Disciplinary
Authority assailed the order passed by the learned
Administrative Tribunal Cuttack Bench, Cuttack in O.A.
No.2884 of 2014 dismissing his original application
challenging the inquiry report, penalty order, appellate order
and revisional order passed by the Opposite Parties.
The facts of the case are not in dispute. The Petitioner
while working as a Police Constable attached to Chendipada
TUDU Police Station, came to the police station in a intoxicated state
without proper uniform and manhandled the general public
present at the Police Station. He was suspended on
11.10.2008, charges were framed against him on 28.02.2009
and copy of the inquiry report was submitted on 26.04.2012.
Mr. C.R. Patnaik, learned counsel appearing for
the Petitioner submits that he does not challenge the findings
of the learned Tribunal, as far as the inquiry report, appellate
order and revisional order are concerned or on facts or law
point. He, however, submits that the order dated 25.10.2012
removing him from service is disproportionate. It is argued by
Mr. Pattnaik, learned counsel for the Petitioner that in the case
of Damoh Panna Sagar Rural Regional Bank and Another,
(2005) 10 SCC 84, the similar facts were considered by the
Hon'ble Supreme Court. At paragraph-18, of the judgment in
the afore stated cases, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held
that it needs no emphasis that when a court feels that the
punishment is shockingly disproportionate, it must record
reasons for coming to such a conclusion. Mere expression that
the punishment is shockingly disproportionate would not meet
the requirement of law. Even in respect of administrative
orders, Lord Denning, M.R. in Breen v. Amalgamated Engg.
Union, (1971) 1 AII ER 1148. "The giving of reasons is one of
the fundamental of good administration". Reasons substitute
by objectivity. In this case, though the disciplinary authority
has come to a conclusion that the highest punishment of
removal from the service awarded to the petitioner, no reason
has been given thereof.
We have examined the case and found that there
is no allegation by the department against the Petitioner that
he had indulged in any similar kind of activity in part. No
doubt, there is some adverse confidential career report but the
nature of the same have not been discussed. So, they are not
such a character, that would compel the disciplinary authority
to award the maximum punishment of removal from the
service.
Keeping in view the long service of the Petitioner in the
Police Department and absence of any similar allegation
against him in the past, we are of the opinion that the
punishment imposed is shocking disproportionate.
Accordingly, we allow the writ application, set aside the
order passed by the learned Administrative Tribunal, Cuttack
Bench, Cuttack so far as it relates to penalty. The order dated
25.10.2012, vide Annexure-9 to the original application before
the learned Tribunal imposing penalty, is hereby quashed. The
matter is remanded back to the Disciplinary Authority i.e.
Superintendent of Police (Opposite Party No.4) who shall afford
reasonable opportunity of hearing to the Petitioner and
reconsider the question of penalty.
The Petitioner is directed to produce the certified
copy of this order and file a properly comprehensive articulated
representation before the Opposite Party No.4 within a period
of fifteen days hence. On such an event, the Superintendent of
Police, Angul shall consider his case and keeping in view the
observation made by us in this writ application, pass a fresh
order. We hope and trust that the Superintendent of Police
shall take a compassionate view of the matter and pass an
appropriate order.
Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of.
Urgent certified copy of this order be granted as
per rules.
.........................
S.K.Mishra, J
.........................
Savitri Ratho, J
