Bhabani Charan Biswal vs State Of Odisha & Others
2023 Latest Caselaw 9760 Ori

       IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

             WPC(OAC) Nos.1708 & 1709 of 2012

 In the matter of an application under Section 19 of the
 Administrative Tribunal Act, 1985.
                          ..................

                      WPC(OAC) No.1708 of 2012

 Bhabani Charan Biswal                      ....                     Petitioner

                                     -versus-

 State of Odisha & Others                   ....             Opposite Parties


          For Petitioner         :      M/s.P. K. Mishra, S.Mishra,
                                        S.Pattnaik & M. Pati.

          For Opp. Parties :            Addl. Standing Counsel
                                        Mr.H.K. Panigrahi.


                      WPC(OAC) No.1709 of 2012

 Sukesh Kumar Panda                         ....                     Petitioner

                                     -versus-

 State of Odisha & Others                   ....             Opposite Parties


          For Petitioner         :      M/s.S.N. Biswal, G.R. Sethi &
                                        J.K. Digal.

          For Opp. Parties :            Addl. Standing Counsel
                                        Mr.H.K. Panigrahi.

PRESENT:


     THE HONBLE JUSTICE BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Date of Hearing:02.08.2023 and Date of Judgment: .08.2023
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                           // 2 //




Biraja Prasanna Satapathy, J.

1. Since issue involved in both the cases is identical and

the challenge made in the writ petitions are also similar,

both the matters are heard analogously and disposed of

vide the present common order.

Both the Writ Petitions have been filed challenging the

Office Order dated 01.05.2012 so issued by the

Government-Opposite Party No.1, whereby the fresh

Enquiry Officer was appointed to enquire into the charges

framed against the Petitioners vide Memorandum dated

21.04.2008 and 15.03.2008 respectively. On initiation of

such proceeding against the Petitioner, not only they filed

their respective written statement of defence, but also

participated in the enquiry so conducted by the Enquiry

Officer on being duly appointed by Opposite Party No.1.

2. The factual backdrop giving rise to filing of the

present case is that the Enquiry Officer after conducting

the enquiry submitted his enquiry report on 16.11.2010.

While the Enquiry Officer in his report opined to exonerate

the Petitioner in WPC(OAC) No.1708 of 2012 from the

charges, the self-same Enquiry Officer in respect of the

Petitioner in the connected WPC(OAC) No.1709 of 2012 held

// 3 //

in guilty as against Charge No.1 of the Memorandum and

proposed to impose punishment of withholding of

increment. While recommending such punishment against

the Petitioner in the connected WPC(OAC) No.1709 of 2012,

the Enquiry Officer also opined not to impose any major

penalty and to exonerate him from the charges.

3. It is contended that after receipt of the enquiry report

both the Petitioners were issued with the 1st show cause in

terms of the provision contained under Rule-15 of the OCS

(Pension) Rules, 1992 on 01.10.2011. On receipt of the

enquiry report along with the 1st show cause, both the

Petitioners were also submitted their respective replies on

25.10.2011.

3.1. It is also contended that since an initiation of the

proceeding against the Petitioners, both are placed under

suspension and the order of suspension was never revoked,

the Petitioners approached the Tribunal in O.A No.2995(C)

of 2010 and 2441(C) of 2010 respectively. The Tribunal

when directed the Opposite Party No.1 to take a decision in

terms of the provisions contained under Rule-12(5) of the

OCS (CC&A) Rules, 1962. Opposite Party No.1 vide order

Signature Not Verifieddated 25.05.2011 while refusing to revoke the order of Digitally Signed Signed by: SUBRAT KUMAR BARIK Reason: .. suspension enhanced the subsistence amount from 50% to Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACK Date: 26-Aug-2023 11:58:13