Sangita Padhan vs Gm
2021 Latest Caselaw 11947 Ori

            IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
                         W.P.(C) No. 36280 of 2021


Sangita Padhan                        .....                             Petitioner

                                              Mr. S.R. Singh Samant, Advocate
                                      Vs.
GM, MCL, Jharsuguda & others          .....                      Opposite parties

                                                                  State Counsel

             CORAM:
                 DR. JUSTICE B.R. SARANGI

                                          ORDER

22.11.2021

Order No. W.P.(C) No. 36280 of 2021 & I.A. 16851 of 2021

This matter is taken up through hybrid mode.

2. Heard Mr. Swarup Ranjan Singh Samant, learned counsel for the petitioner.

3. The petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking for quashing of the order dated 25/26.10.2021 under Annexure-9 and the inquiry notice dated 26.10.2021 under Annexure-10.

4. Mr. Samant learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner is a land oustee and got the employment by the MCL authority under the policy formulated by the State. While she was so continuing she was subjected to inquiry by the inquiry officer appointed by the disciplinary authority. The inquiry officer submitted the report and the same has been taken into consideration by the Disciplinary authority vide order dated 25/26.10.2021. But the Disciplinary Authority having not been satisfied with the report of the inquiry officer directed for a fresh inquiry and accordingly the subsequent inquiry officer issued notice on 26.10.2021 under Annexure-10.

5. Mr. Samant, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that there is no provision under the Certified Standing order of MCL for second inquiry and in the event the Disciplinary authority is not satisfied with the inquiry report submitted by the inquiry officer, he may pass an order disagreeing with the report submitted by the inquiry officer and he cannot direct for second inquiry. In support of his contention, he relied on the judgment of this Court in the case of Ami Lal v. Commandant, 52nd Battalion, Central Reserve Police Force, Manipur and another in W.P.(C) No. 2926 of 2005 decided on 11.09.2019.

6. Issue notice to the opposite parties by registered post with A.D., for which requisites shall be filed within three days.

7. As an interim measure, the proceeding pursuant to the notice dated 26.10.2021 vide Annexure-10 may continue, but the same shall be subject to result of the writ petition, till 09.12.2021.

Arun                                       (DR. B.R. SARANGI)
                                                 JUDGE