Orissa High Court
Deputy Director General (E) vs Sh. Gautam Ballav Mohanty And on 11 May, 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
W.P.(C) No. 14201 of 2023
Deputy Director General (E), ..... Petitioners
BBSR and another
Mr. P.K. Parhi, DSGI along with
Mr. D.R. Bhokta, CGC
Vs.
Sh. Gautam Ballav Mohanty and ..... Opposite Parties
others
Mr. Kailas Kanungo, Advocate (O.P.1)
CORAM:
DR. JUSTICE B.R. SARANGI
MR. JUSTICE M.S.RAMAN
ORDER
11.05.2023
Order No. This matter is taken up through hybrid mode.
01.
2. Heard Mr. P.K. Parhi, learned DSGI along with Mr. D.R. Bhokta,
learned Central Government Counsel appearing for the petitioners and Mr.
K. Kanungo, learned counsel, who has instruction to appear on behalf of
opposite party no.1.
3. The Petitioners have filed this Writ Petition seeking to quash the
order dated 03.03.2023 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal,
Cuttack Bench, Cuttack in C.P. No. 47 of 2017 arising out O.A. No. 384 of
1998.
4. Mr. Mr. P.K. Parhi, learned DSGI appearing for the petitioners at the
outset contended that the matter was heard and reserved by the Tribunal on
25.01.2023 and the order was passed on 03.03.2023, i.e. one month nine
days, which is in violation of Rule-105 of Chapter-XVII of the Central
Administrative Tribunal Rules of Practice, 1993, which requires that when
the orders are reserved, the date for pronouncement not later than 3 weeks
shall be fixed. The date so fixed shall not be changed except after due notice
to all parties/counsel. He further contended that similar matter had come up
before this Court for consideration in Nityananda Barik v. Union of India
and others, 2022 (Supp.) OLR -289, wherein this Court has already held
that if the order is passed dehors of Rule 105 of 1993 Rule, such order
cannot sustain in the eye of law.
5. Mr. Kailas Kanungo, learned counsel appearing on behalf of opposite
party no.1 does not dispute such position on the basis of the judgment passed
by this Court.
6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, it is evident that the
matter was heard and reserved by the Tribunal on 25.01.2023 and the order
was pronounced on 03.03.2023, which is in violation of Rule-105 of
Chapter-XVII of the Central Administrative Tribunal Rules of Practice,
1993. Therefore, the order dated 03.03.2023 passed by the Central
Administrative Tribunal, Cuttack Bench, Cuttack in C.P. No. 47 of 2017
arising out of O.A. No.384 of 1998 cannot be sustained in the eye of law
and is liable to be quashed and is hereby quashed. The matter is remitted
back to the Central Administrative Tribunal, Cuttack Bench, Cuttack for re-
adjudication. It is made clear that this Court has expressed no opinion on the
merits of the case.
7. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of.
(DR. B.R. SARANGI)
JUDGE
Arun (M.S. RAMAN)
JUDGE
ARUN Digitally signed
by ARUN
KUMAR KUMAR MISHRA
Date: 2023.05.12
MISHRA 16:42:27 +05'30'
