Debasis Rout vs Collector
2023 Latest Caselaw 1634 Ori

         ORISSA HIGH COURT : C U T T A C K
                       WPC(OA) NO.799 OF 2017
                    An application under Articles 226 & 227 of
                         the Constitution of India.


Debasis Rout                                        : Petitioner

                                 -Versus-

Collector, Nabarangpur & anr.                       : Opp. Parties



      For Petitioner                   : Ms.B.K.Patnaik, Adv.

      For O.Ps.                        : Mr.S.Ghosh, AGA

                                 JUDGMENT

CORAM :

JUSTICE BISWANATH RATH

Date of Hearing & Judgment : 21.02.2023

1. The Writ Petition involves the following prayer :-

"i) To quash the order dtd.10.1.2017 under Annexure-5.

ii) And pass such other order/orders as may be deemed fit and proper for the interest of justice."

2. Taking this Court to the order of termination challenged

herein at Annexure-5, learned counsel for the Petitioner alleges, even

though there has been termination taking place on the foundation of the

disciplinary proceeding but there has been no enquiry proceeding. Further

taking this Court to the averments made in Paragraph-6.5 of the Writ

// 2 //

Petition involved, an attempt is made by the learned counsel for the

Petitioner to establish such allegation. It is in the circumstances, claim is

made for interfering with the impugned termination order and setting

aside the same.

3. Mr.Ghosh, learned Additional Government Advocate, on the

other hand, reading again the averments made in Paragraph-6.5 of the

Writ Petition submits, on the won submission of the learned counsel for

the Petitioner, there has been enquiry but there is allegation that enquiry

did not involve the Petitioner. In the circumstance and for no challenge to

the enquiry proceeding, Mr.Ghosh contends, unless the enquiry

proceeding involves a challenge and the observation of the enquiry

proceeding gets negatived, there is no scope for interfering with the

impugned order at Annexure-5.

4. Considering the rival contentions of the Parties and keeping

in view the specific allegation of the Petitioner through Paragraph-6.5 of

the Writ Petition, this Court reading through the averments made in

Paragraph-6.5 finds, the Petitioner has the following pleading :-

"6.5. That, on the basis of the allegation of said Ghasi Harijan, the Collector, Nabarangpur directed to cause an enquiry and find out the truth of the matter. The enquiry was conducted behind back of the applicant without providing him to have a say. On the basis of said enquiry vide order dt.10.1.2017 the applicant was disengaged from service with immediate effect. The said order is tale tale illegal, ex facie arbitrary and complete non-

// 3 //

application of mind. A copy of the order dtd.10.1.2017 is marked to this application as Annexure-5."

5. Following the pleading in Paragraph-6.5 of the Writ Petition,

undisputedly there has been involvement of an enquiry proceeding. The

enquiry proceeding conducted in the involvement of the delinquent or not

is not a question here. Further looking to the counter averments in

Paragraph-7, this Court finds, there has been complete denial to the

allegation of the Petitioner that there has been no disciplinary proceeding

at all. Through the averments made in Paragraph-7 of the counter

affidavit, the response of the learned State Counsel reveals as follows :-

"7. That, in reply para No.6.7 to para No.6.8 of the O.A., it is submitted that Sri Chandradhawaja Bhakta, Sri Tarun Naik both are security guards confessed regarding demanding money from the petitioner and they also returned back the bribe money of Rs.500/- each on dated 20.12.2016. The aforesaid security guard also deposed that they had paid Rs.1500/- to Sri Debasis Rout, Lab. Technician. Then Sri Debasis Rout, Jr.Lab. Technician (Path) also refunded back the bribe money of his share for Rs.1500/- on dated 07.101.2017. The total amount of Rs.2500/- was refunded back to the petitioner Sri Ghasia Harijan on dated 17.01.2017 (Annexure- E, F). The Petitioner participated in the enquiry and gave his disposition before the enquiry officer adequate opportunity were provided by the petitioner at the stage of enquiry. So the claim of the petitioner he has not opportunity with dependent before the Enquiry officer is false and till denied."

6. Keeping in view all the above, this Court finds, unless there

is challenge to the development through the disciplinary proceeding

already held on the allegation against the Petitioner and gets the same set

aside, there is no scope of challenging the impugned order of termination.

// 4 //

In the circumstance, this Court finds, the Writ Petition is not sustainable

in the eye of law and thus stands dismissed.

(Biswanath Rath) Judge

Orissa High Court, Cuttack.

The 21st February, 2023/M.K.Rout, A.R.-cum-Sr.Secy.