General Manager vs Rinku Behera
2023 Latest Caselaw 2389 Ori

                     IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
                                         W.A. No.222 of 2023

              General Manager, (P-PF/Pen/CPIO), ....                 Appellant
              Mahanadi Coalfields Ltd., Sambalpur
                                   M/s. D. Mohanty and associates, Advocates
                                             -versus-
              Rinku Behera                                 ....          Respondent

                                                           Mr. T. Nanda, Advocate

              CORAM:
              THE CHIEF JUSTICE
              JUSTICE G. SATAPATHY
                                           ORDER

Order No.                                 23.03.2023
            I. A. No.544 of 2023

02. 1. For the reasons stated therein, the application is allowed. The delay of 83 days in filing the appeal is condoned.

W.A. No.222 of 2023

2. Issue Notice. Mr. T. Nanda, learned counsel accepts notice for the Respondent.

3. The present appeal has been filed against an order dated 21st October, 2022 passed by the learned Single Judge disposing of W.P.(C) 25946 of 2022 filed by the Respondent and directing that during the pendency of the criminal case against the Respondent, the disciplinary proceedings initiated against him by the present

Appellant i.e. the Mahanadi Coalfields Limited (MCL) shall remain stayed. In issuing the said directions, the learned Single Judge has relied on the decisions of the Supreme Court of India in M. Paul Anthony v. Bharat Gold Mines Ltd. AIR 1999 SC 1416 and Tata Oil Mills Co. Ltd. v. Its Workmen AIR 1965 SC 155.

4. Learned counsel for the Appellant points out that there have been subsequent judgments of the Supreme Court of India including Karnataka Power Transmission Corporation Limited v. C.Nagaraju AIR 2019 SC 4308 which have categorically held that disciplinary proceedings and criminal case on the same set of facts can proceed simultaneously. It is further pointed out that the Appellant was not given an opportunity to file a counter affidavit in the writ petition to explain the legal position.

5. Indeed it is seen that the impugned order is a cryptic one which does not discuss the complete facts of the case and the settled legal position as explained in several decisions of the Supreme Court subsequent to the decisions referred to in the impugned order. Accordingly, the impugned order is hereby set aside and W.P.(C) 25946 of 2022 is restored to the file of the learned Single Judge, in the Roster Bench, where it will be listed for hearing on 12th July, 2023. The present Appellant will file its para-wise reply to the writ petition not later than 28th June, 2023 and the Respondent will file a rejoinder thereto, not later than 12th July, 2023. No further time shall be granted to either party for the above purposes.

6. The Court is informed that in the meanwhile Respondent has resumed service. It is directed that the disciplinary proceedings against him may continue, but will not be finalized till further orders by the learned Single Judge.

7. The writ appeal is disposed of in the above terms.

(Dr. S. Muralidhar) Chief Justice

(G. Satapathy) Judge M. Panda