Orissa High Court
Manoranjan Pattnayak vs Collector on 20 January, 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
WPC (OAC) No. 3229 of 2014
Manoranjan Pattnayak .... Petitioner
None
-versus-
Collector, Rayagada & Others .... Opp. Parties
Mr. S.K. Samal, Addl. Govt.
Advocate
CORAM:
JUSTICE M.S. SAHOO
ORDER
Order No. 20.01.2023
Hybrid Mode
06. 1. When the matter was taken up on 12.04.2022,
the following order was passed:
"1. This matter is taken up by hybrid mode.
2. It is submitted by Mr. Mohapatra, learned
counsel that he has instructions to appear on
behalf of the petitioner.
3. The Original Application having been
transferred from the learned Orissa
Administrative Tribunal, Cuttack Bench,
Cuttack upon its abolition, has been
registered before this Court on 11.12.2021.
4. On perusal of the available order sheets of
the learned Tribunal it is indicated that the
matter was taken up on 3.11.2014, notices
were issued and interim order was passed :
"So far as the prayer for interim
relief is concerned, no order
RJ pursuant to the notice as at
Annexure-8 be passed without
considering the show-cause filed
by the applicant."
5. The matter was never taken up/pursued
thereafter.
6. Referring to the counter affidavit, learned
// 2 //
AGA submits that the petitioner was put
under suspension in view of the detention in
custody for a period exceeding forty-eight
hours. When the petitioner was working as a
Junior Clerk in the office of the Child
Development Project Officer, Rayagada, a
departmental proceeding was drawn up
against him under Rule 15 of the Orissa Civil
Services (CCA) Rules, 1962. It is further
submitted that the averments made in the
O.A. to the effect that the petitioner was not
given opportunity, is not correct. To that effect
averments made in the counter as relied upon
by the learned AGA, are quoted herein :
"7. That in reply to Para-6.7, it is
to submit that the enquiry report in
Departmental Proceeding No.671,
dated 8.05.2010 drawn up
against the applicant was
received vide letter No. 5231,
dt.13.10.2011 of Sub-Collector,
Rayagada. A copy of the same
was served upon the applicant on
17.12.2011 directing him to
furnish his representation, if any,
he wishes to make against the
findings of the Enquiring Officer
within 15 days. But the applicant
did not furnish any representation
on the findings of the enquiry
report."
7. It is further submitted that the petitioner
was convicted by the learned Special Judge
(Vigilance), Jeypore vide judgment dated
26.8.2014 under sections 7/13(2)/13(1)(d) of
the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988
sentencing him to undergo rigorous
imprisonment for one year, pay fine of
Rs.10,000/- in default of payment of fine to
undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months
on each count for the offences.
8. It is further submitted that the order of
conviction has not been stayed in the CRLA
// 3 //
No.449 of 2014 filed by the applicant before
this Court. Relying on the averments made in
the counter affidavit, provisions in terms of
Rule 15 of the OCS (CCA) Rules, 1962 and the
Article 311 of the Constitution of India, it is
contended by learned AGA that the petitioner
is liable to be dismissed from service in view
of conviction in the criminal case.
9. Having heard learned AGA to grant another
opportunity to the petitioner, list on
18.5.2022."
Thereafter, Mr. J.K. Mohapatra, learned counsel
appeared for the petitioner and the matter was
adjourned at the instance of the petitioner to
05.07.2022. On 05.07.2022, the matter was again
adjourned at the instance of the petitioner to
10.11.2022 and to grant another opportunity to the
petitioner, the matter was adjourned to 28.11.2022
and the interim order passed by the learned Tribunal
stands vacated. Thereafter, the matter was listed on
19.12.2022 and was adjourned at the instance of the
petitioner.
2. None appears for the petitioner when the matter
is called.
3. Learned Addl. Govt. Advocate reiterates his
submissions as noted in the earlier order dated
12.04.2022 that the petitioner was put under
suspension in view of the detention in custody for a
period exceeding forty-eight hours. When the petitioner
was working as a Junior Clerk in the office of the Child
Development Project Officer, Rayagada, a departmental
proceeding was drawn up against him under Rule15 of
// 4 //
the Orissa Civil Services (CCA) Rules, 1962. It is
further submitted that the averments made in the O.A.
to the effect that the petitioner was not given
opportunity, is not correct. To that effect averments
made in the counter as relied upon by the learned
AGA, are quoted herein:-
"7. That in reply to Para-6.7, it is to submit
that the enquiry report in Departmental
Proceeding No.671, dated `8.05.2010 drawn
up against the applicant was received vide
letter No. 5231, dt.13.10.2011 of Sub-
Collector, Rayagada. A copy of the same was
served upon the applicant on 17.12.2011
directing him to furnish his representation, if
any, he wishes to make against the findings
of the Enquiring Officer within 15 days. But
the applicant did not furnish any
representation on the findings of the enquiry
report."
It is further submitted that the petitioner was
convicted by the learned Special Judge (Vigilance),
Jeypore vide judgment dated 26.8.2014 under sections
7/13(2)/13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act,
1988 sentencing him to undergo rigorous
imprisonment for one year, pay fine of Rs.10,000/- in
default of payment of fine to undergo rigorous
imprisonment for six months on each count for the
offences. It is further submitted that the order of
conviction has not been stayed in the CRLA No.449 of
2014 filed by the applicant before this Court. Relying
on the averments made in the counter affidavit,
provisions in terms of Rule 15 of the OCS (CCA) Rules,
// 5 //
1962 and the Article 311 of the Constitution of India, it
is contended by learned AGA that the petitioner is
liable to be dismissed from service in view of conviction
in the criminal case.
4. In considered view of this Court, the writ petition
is devoid of any merit in view of the specific provision of
Rule 15 of the OCS (CCA) Rules, 1962 and Article 311
of the Constitution of India, after the petitioner was
convicted by the learned Special (Vigilance), Jeypore
vide judgment dated 26.8.2014 under sections
7/13(2)/13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act,
1988. It remains uncontroverted that the said order of
conviction still remains without being interfered
subsequently by the superior court.
Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed.
(M.S. Sahoo)
Judge
