Orissa High Court
Commissioner-Cum-Secretary vs Biswanath Ghosh And Another on 20 July, 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
W.P (C) No. 21287 of 2017
Commissioner-cum-Secretary, ..... Petitioner
School and Mass Education
Department and others
Mr. A.K. Mishra, AGA
Vs.
Biswanath Ghosh and another ..... Opposite Parties
Dr. J.K. Lenka, Adv.
CORAM:
DR. JUSTICE B.R. SARANGI
MR. JUSTICE MURAHARI SRI RAMAN
ORDER
20.07.2023
Order No. This matter is taken up by hybrid mode.
07.
2. Heard Mr. A.K. Mishra, learned Addl. Government
Advocate appearing for the State-Petitioners and Dr. J.K. Lenka,
learned counsel for opposite party no.1.
3. The State functionaries have filed this writ petition seeking
to quash the order dated 18.05.2017 passed by the Orissa
Administrative Tribunal, Bhubaneswar in O.A. No. 2535 of 2015
under Annexure-3.
4. Mr. A.K. Mishra, learned Addl. Government Advocate
appearing for the State-Petitioners contended that the question
involved in this writ petition is fully covered by the ratio decided
by this Court in the case of Suresh Chandra Mishra v. State of
Odisha and others, 2020 (II) ILR CUT 383. He has also brought
to the notice of the Court paragraph-6 of the judgment, wherein in
sub-para (iii) and (iv) the relevant questions have been formulated
and, as such, the same have been answered in discussion point
nos.(iii) and (iv) of the judgment. Thereby, it is contended that the
present case is akin to the judgment decided by this Court and, as
such, this case may be disposed of in terms of the aforesaid
judgment.
5. Dr. J.K. Lenka, learned counsel for opposite party no.1
disputed the contention raised by learned State Counsel and
contended that the aforesaid judgment is not applicable to the
present case. It is contended that the opposite party no.1 is entitled
to the benefit of employment.
6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after going
through the records, this Court finds that the present case is fully
covered by the ratio decided by this Court in the case of Suresh
Chandra Mishra (supra). As such, the finding of the tribunal in
paragraphs-8 and 10 are extracted hereunder:-
"8. We are of the view that as per rule 18(i) of
the OCS (CC& A) Rules 1962, the Disciplinary
authority should pass order independently after due
application of mind and without being biased or
influenced by any other agency, giving reasonable
opportunity to the convict of being heard. The dismissal
order should be a speaking order in conformity with
Rule 18(i) of the OCS (CC & A) rules 1962 clearly
indicating regarding the conduct of the convict which
laid to his conviction, opportunity provided to him to
defend his case and the reason for passing such
dismissal order.
10. The effect of passing improper dismissal orders by
the disciplinary authorities only by citing letter
references of G.A. (Vigilance) Department only, in
conviction cases , the letter dtd. 02.06.2015 issued by
the G.A. (Vigilance) Department is very clear since it is
not in conformity with Rule 18(i) of the OCS (CC & A)
Rules 1962. Though in terms of Rule 18(i) of the OCS
(CC & A) Rules 1962, the Disciplinary authority should
pass order independently after due application of mind
and without being biased or influenced by any other
agency, giving reasonable opportunity to the convict of
being heard and the dismissal order should be a
speaking order in conformity with Rule 18(i) of the OCS
(CC & A) rule 1962 clearly indicating regarding the
conduct of the convict which laid to his conviction,
opportunity provided to him to defend his case and the
reason for passing such dismissal order, the respondent
No.2 being the disciplinary authority has completely
failed to discharge his statutory duties even after the
same has been informed to him through the letters of
Respondent No.1 and the G.A.(Vigilance) Department.
The Disciplinary authority has miserably failed to pass
order independently after due application of mind and
without being biased or influenced by any other agency,
giving reasonable opportunity to the convict of being
heard and the dismissal order should be a speaking orde
in conformity with Rule 18(i) of the OCS (CC & A)
Rules 1962. He also completely failed to indicated
regarding the conduct of the convict which laid to his
conviction, opportunity provided to him to defend his
case and the reason for passing such dismissal order."
7. As it appears, the findings arrived at by the tribunal are not
in compliance of the observations made by this Court in Suresh
Chandra Mishra (supra). Therefore, the order dated 18.05.2017
passed by the Odisha Administrative Tribunal, Bhubaneswar in
O.A. No. 2535 of 2015 under Annexure-3 cannot be sustained in
the eye of law and the same is liable to be quashed and is hereby
quashed by holding that the action taken by the authority is well
justified.
8. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of.
Ashok (DR. B.R. SARANGI)
JUDGE
(M.S. RAMAN)
JUDGE
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: ASHOK KUMAR JAGADEB MOHAPATRA
Designation: Personal Assistant
Reason: Authentication
Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA
Date: 21-Jul-2023 14:12:26
