Orissa High Court

Bikram Kumar Sahoo vs The Appeal Committee on 24 August, 2023

                                                 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
                                                          W.P.(C) No.11049 of 2022
                                            Bikram Kumar Sahoo                 ....          Petitioner
                                                                       Mr. Biren Sankar Tripathy, Adv.
                                                                    -versus-
                                            The Appeal Committee, High       ....           Respondent

Court of Orissa, Cuttack and ORs.

Mr. D.K. Mishra, AGA

CORAM:

                                                        MR. JUSTICE D. DASH
                                                        DR. JUSTICE S.K. PANIGRAHI
                     Order                                           ORDER
                     No.                                            24.08.2023

03. 1. This matter is taken up through hybrid arrangement

(virtual / physical) mode.

2. In this Writ Petition, the Petitioner challenges the

Minutes of the Meeting of the Appeal Committee/

Opposite Party No.1 held in Judges Longue, 3rd Floor of

New Building of this Court on 01.12.2021, by which the

Appeal filed by him was dismissed.

3. Heard learned counsel for the Parties.

4. The fact of the case is that the Petitioner while serving

as Junior Clerk (Comparing Clerk) in the office of the

learned Additional Civil Judge (Junior Dision)-cum-

S.D.J.M., Hindol, a disciplinary proceeding bearing D.P.

Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Designation: Assistant Registrar-cum-Senior Secretary Reason: Authentication Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACK Date: 01-Sep-2023 10:54:38 // 2 //

No.01 of 2013 was initiated against one Santosh Kumar

Rana, Junior Typist-cum-Copyist and the present

Petitioner by the Opposite Party No.2/ District and

Sessions Judge-cum-Disciplinary Authority, Dhenkanal

directing them to file reply to the show cause on the

charges as follows:-

"While you both are working as Jr. Typist and Comparing Clerk respectively in the court of the Addl. Civil Judge (JD)-cum-SDJM, Hindol one copy application was filed bearing No.78/2012 for issuance of certified copy of judgment dtd.25.05.2000 passed in Criminal Appeal No.78/1990 by the Sessions Judge, Dhenkanal, Angul and the said certified copy was prepared through Xerox process out of the copy of the judgment available in the lower court record i.e. GR 106/1989 wherein some letters/ sentences were missing. Preparing certified copy from a copy is not permissible under law, but both of you have certified the copy from out of a copy knowingly which amounts to gross negligence and dereliction of duty on your part.

You are therefore directed to submit your Show-cause by 26.03.2023 as to why you both shall not be punished in the event of the above charge being proved against you, failing which it will be deemed that you have no Show-cause to offer and the matter will be decided exparte.

You are required to state in your Show-cause, if you want to be heard in person"

5. In response to the said memorandum of charges, the

Petitioner submitted his explanation stating therein that

he was a new entrant and has been entrusted with the

performance of duties dealing with 2 (a) cc, 2 (b) cc, 2(c) cc

and UI case records (general file) and data entry work of

all case records in addition to his own duties. He had no

practical experience about comparing works in the

certified copy with the original order. Due to heavy

pressure of work and lack of knowledge about the rules

and regulations regarding grant of certified copies to

litigant public, he was taking the help of his seniors of the

station to manage his seat and working as per satisfaction

of his authority. Therefore, he had put his signature in

good faith on the certified copy without any malafide

intention. He further undertook not to commit such type

of mistake in future.

6. Thereafter, the Opposite Party No.2/disciplinary

authority issued notice dated 13.05.2013 directing the

Petitioner to appear in person before him on 07.06.2013

and explain as to why the penalties envisaged under

clause (iii), (iv), (vi) to (ix) of Rule-13 of the Orissa Civil

Services (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 1962

(hereinafter after referred to as " OCS (CCA) Rules" for

brevity) shall not be imposed on him.

7. In response to the said notice dated 13.05.2013 of the

Opposite Party No.2/disciplinary authority, the Petitioner

appeared before the Opposite Party No.2/disciplinary

authority with a prayer to excuse him and exempt from

imposition of the proposed penalties on 07.06.2013.

8. Thereafter, the Opposite Party No.2/disciplinary

authority passed the order dated 07.06.2013 imposing

punishment of withholding/ stopping one annual

increment with cumulative effect. He was further warned

to be very careful in future while dealing with such

matters.

9. Being aggrieved, the Petitioner had filed an Appeal

before the Opposite Party No.1/ Appeal Committee with a

prayer to set aside the order of punishment dated

07.06.2013 passed by the Opposite Party No.2/disciplinary

authority and to exonerate him from the charges.

10. The Appeal Committee dismissed the Appeal filed by

the Petitioner vide Minutes of the Meeting dated

01.12.2021 confirming the order of punishment dated

07.06.2013 passed by the Opposite Party No.2/disciplinary

authority. Being aggrieved by the Minutes of the Meeting

dated 01.12.2021 of the Appeal Committee, the Petitioner

has filed the present Writ Petition.

11. Learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that the

Appeal Committee has dismissed the Appeal preferred by

the Petitioner confirming the order of punishment passed

by the Opposite Party No.2/disciplinary authority without

considering any of the grounds taken in the appeal.

12. He further submits that the Appeal Committee while

considering the Appeal has lost sight of the fact that the

Petitioner had only compared the photo copy, which was

Xeroxed by the Junior Typist and, thereafter, the certified

copy was granted by the Bench Clerk/ Clerk-in-Charge.

However, the proceedings were initiated against the

Petitioner as well as the Junior Typist, but no proceedings

was initiated against the Bench Clerk/ Clerk- in-Charge,

who is also responsible for issuance of the certified copy.

Therefore, the conclusion arrived at by the Appeal

Committee was not just and proper.

13. It is further submitted that the punishment imposed

on the Petitioner is highly disproportionate to the charges

leveled against him. The disciplinary authority should

have warned the petitioner instead of stopping one

annual increment with cumulative effect taking into

account the fact that the Petitioner was a new entrant to

the Copying Section and quite ignorant about the rules

and regulations of comparing of copy and has admitted

the fault as being ignorant of the rules and regulations

then. Besides, even though the Petitioner though

compared the photo copy, but the certified copy was

granted by the Bench Clerk/ Clerk-in-Charge. He further

submits that the Appeal Committee without considering

the said aspect have come to a wrong conclusion by

confirming the order passed by Opposite Party

No.2/disciplinary authority. Therefore, the Minutes of the

Appeal Committee dated 01.12.2021 under Annexure-7 is

liable to be quashed.

14. In view of above, learned counsel for the Petitioner

submits that the Minutes of the Appeal Committee dated

01.12.2021 under Annexure-7 and the order of

punishment dated 07.06.2013 passed by the Opposite

Party No.2/ disciplinary authority may be quashed and

direction may be issued to the Opposite Party

No.2/disciplinary authority to exonerate the Petitioner

from the charges with warning.

15. In reply, learned counsel for the State submits that the

Opposite Party No.2/disciplinary authority as well as the

Appeal Committee have considered all the aspects

relevant for the purpose of imposition of punishment on

the Petitioner. There is no cogent reason to interfere with

the same. He, therefore, contended that this Writ Petition

should be dismissed.

16. It appears from the record that the Petitioner has

committed the mistake in view of the fact that the

Petitioner in his show-cause explanation has stated that

he was a new entrant and dealing with 2 (a) cc, 2 (b) cc,

2(c) cc and UI case records (general file) and data entry

work of all case records in addition to his own duties. He

had no practical experience about comparing works in the

certified copy. Due to heavy work pressure and lack of

knowledge about the rules and regulations regarding

grant of certified copies to litigant public, he was taking

the help of his seniors of the station to manage his seat

and working as per satisfaction of his authority.

Therefore, he had put his signature on good faith on the

certified copy without any malafide intention. He further

undertook not to commit such type of mistake in future.

But the error committed by the Petitioner for all these

above cannot be so lightly brushed aside and condoned

considering it to be a petty one. Therefore, there is no

hesitation on our part to go with the finding of the Appeal

Committee confirming one rendered by the Opposite

Party No.2/disciplinary authority.

17. Therefore, having considered the contentions made by

the learned counsel for the Parties and on applying our

judicious mind carefully on the materials available on

records so also the provisions of law, this Court is of the

view that the penalty imposed by the Opposite Party

No.2/disciplinary authority vide its order dated 07.06.2013

which has been confirmed by the Appeal Committee/

Opposite Party No.1 in the Minutes of its Meeting dated

01.12.2021 withholding/ stopping one annual increment

on the Petitioner with cumulative effect is

disproportionate and need be revisited.

18. In such view of the matter, this Writ Petition is

allowed in-part insofar the imposition of penalty is

concerned. Accordingly, the penalty imposed is modified

to the extent that one increment of the Petitioner be

withheld/ stopped without cumulative effect.

19. Accordingly, this Writ Petition is disposed of.

                                   .                                                         (D. Dash)
                                                                                               Judge



                                                                                         (Dr. S.K. Panigrahi)
                                                                                                 Judge
                         B.Jhankar


Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR

Designation: Assistant Registrar-cum-Senior Secretary Reason: Authentication Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACK Date: 01-Sep-2023 10:54:38