Orissa High Court
Registrar vs Sri Rabindra Nath Pati And Others on 2 May, 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
W.A. No.1025 of 2021
Registrar, Utkal University .... Appellant
Mr. Tarananda Pattanayak, Advocate
-versus-
Sri Rabindra Nath Pati and others .... Respondents
None
CORAM:
THE CHIEF JUSTICE
JUSTICE G. SATAPATHY
ORDER
02.05.2023
Order No.
01. 1. This appeal is directed against a judgment dated 17th September
2021 passed by the learned Single Judge allowing OJC No.10148 of
2000 filed by Respondent No.1 questioning a show cause notice
issued to him by the Appellant-University and also to quash the
enquiry held subsequent thereto.
2. The aforementioned writ petition was the second round of
litigation before this Court. Respondent No.1 was working as
Assistant Director in the Population Research Centre attached to the
Appellant-University. Initially, a charge-sheet was drawn up in
disciplinary proceedings initiated against Respondent No.1 in
response to which he denied all the allegations therein. The Vice-
Chancellor (VC) of the Appellant-University then appointed the
Joint Director of Health, Family Welfare, Government of Odisha as
an Enquiry Officer and the Deputy Director of the Population
Research Centre as the Marshaling Officer. According to
Respondent No.1 while he was expecting the regular enquiry to
proceed, the VC and Registrar of the Appellant-University through
a paper publication asked Respondent No.1 to show cause why he
should not be dismissed/removed from service. This led to
Respondent No.1 filing OJC No.5138 of 2000 challenging the said
show cause notice. In the said writ petition, an interim order was
passed that no coercive action would be taken against Respondent
No.1 till disposal of the said writ petition.
3. OJC No.5138 of 2000 came to be disposed of by the learned
Single Judge recording the statement of the counsel appearing for
the Appellant herein that the enquiry would be concluded within a
period of two months. As it transpires after disposal of the OJC
No.5138 of 2000, Respondent No.1 was asked to appear before the
VC to participate in oral enquiry proceedings. This led to
Respondent No.1 filing the second writ petition i.e., O.J.C.
No.10148 of 2000 again challenging the same show cause notice
and the proceedings consequent thereto. Inter alia, it was argued
that the enquiry itself was a sham since the outcome was pre-
decided as indicated in para 3 of the show cause notice which reads
as under:
"It is, therefore, decided that you are to be
dismissed from service following provisions of
Rule 72 (2) of Orissa Service Code which is
applicable to employees working in Population
Research Centre under the Utkal University,
mutadis mutandis as per University statute and as
per Govt. of India instructions."
4. While agreeing with the above contention, the learned Single
Judge also agreed with the plea of Respondent No.1 that the
enquiry was conducted by the VC himself who actually was the
Disciplinary Authority. Thus the VC ended up becoming both the
Enquiry Officer as well as the Marshaling Officer which was
obviously not permissible in law.
5. Having found the entire proceedings to be without legal basis, the
learned Single Judge set aside the show cause notice and the
enquiry report and allowed the writ petition.
6. The learned Single Judge noted that Respondent No.1 had
already long crossed the age of superannuation and therefore there
was no purpose to be served in requiring the enquiry to be
undertaken afresh. The only question was of granting of retiral
benefits. The learned Single Judge directed the exercise of
calculating his retiral benefits to be completed within one and half
months and the amount to be paid with simple interest of 5% per
annum.
7. The Appellant is aggrieved to the extent that the learned Single
Judge has asked the retiral benefits to be paid with simple interest at
5% per annum.
8. It is seen that Respondent No.1 had to face litigation from age 46
and the ligation never came to an end even while he crossed the age
of superannuation. The entire proceeding was a sham as is evident
from the proceedings narrated hereinbefore. In the circumstances,
the learned Single Judge was justified in not only setting aside the
show cause notice and the enquiry report, but ordering that retiral
benefits should now be paid to Respondent No.1 with nominal
simple interest.
9. Given the amount of suffering Respondent No.1 had to endure,
the Court does not find the direction that he should be paid the
retiral benefits with 5% simple interest to be unreasonable and
calling for interference.
10. Consequently, the writ appeal is dismissed.
(Dr. S. Muralidhar)
Chief Justice
(G. Satapathy)
Judge
S.K. Guin
SUBASH Digitally signed by SUBASH
KUMAR GUIN
KUMAR GUIN Date: 2023.05.03 14:40:04
+05'30'
