Niranjan Nayak vs State Of Odisha And
2023 Latest Caselaw 12549 Ori

          IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

                        W.P.(C) (OA) No.603 of 2016

        Niranjan Nayak                     ....                     Petitioner
                                                       Mr. N. Rath, Advocate

                                       -versus-
        State of Odisha and               ....               Opposite Parties
        Others
                                                       Mr. B. Panigrahi, ASC
                              CORAM:
               JUSTICE BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY

                                         ORDER

05.10.2023 Order No.

08. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual/Physical) Mode.

2. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

3. The Petitioner has filed the present Writ Petition challenging the order of punishment passed by the Disciplinary Authority-Opposite Party No.1 on 11.02.2015 under Annexure-8 and confirmation of the same by the appellate authority vide order dtd.17.07.2015 under Annexure-10.

4. Learned counsel for the Petitioner contended that in the proceeding initiated against the Petitioner on 15.03.2013 when the order of punishment was passed without considering his stand vide order dtd.11.02.2015 under Annexure-8, the Petitioner filed a detailed appeal before the appellate authority vide Annexure-9.

// 2 //

4.1. It is contended that though various grounds were taken in support of the appeal so filed under Annexure-9, but the appellate authority without proper appreciation of the same and without assigning any reason whatsoever rejected the appeal vide order dtd.17.07.2015.

5. Mr. Rath, accordingly contended that since no reason has been assigned while rejecting the appeal, the said order is not sustainable in the eye of law.

6. In support of his aforesaid submission, Mr. Rath,

learned counsel for the Petitioner relied on the decision of

this Court reported in 2013 (Supp.1) OLR-736 and

2012(1) OLR-87. 6.2.

6.1. This Court in Para-8 & 10 of the said judgment

reported in 2012(1) OLR-87 has held as follows:-

"8. Admittedly, the aforesaid order does not contain any reason for rejecting of the bid and cancellation of the tender. Law is no more res integra that an authority must pass a reasoned order indicating the material on which its conclusion are based.

10. Reason is the heartbeat of every conclusion. It introduces clarity in an order and without the same it becomes lifeless. [See Raj Kishore Jha v. State of Bihar (2003) 11 SCC 510]".

6.2. This Court in Para-13 of the said judgment reported

in 2013 (Supp.1) OLR-736 has held as follows:-

"13. After giving our anxius hearing to the matter and keeping in mind the position of law and the CCA Rules, we are

// 3 //

constrained to hold that the learned Tribunal failed to exercise its jurisdiction in the matter. The impugned order of the Tribunal smacks of application of judicial mind and conscience. It is to be remembered that the reasons are the soul of orders. Non- recording of reasons could lead to dual infirmities; firstly, it may cause prejudice to the affected party and secondly, more particularly, hamper the proper administration of justice. The orders of the Court must reflect what weighed with the Court in granting or declining the relief claimed by the Petitioner".

7. Mr. Panigrahi, learned Addl. Standing Counsel though supported the impugned order passed under Annexures-8 & 10, but fairly contended that no reason has been assigned by the appellate authority while rejecting the appeal vide order under Annexure-10.

8. Having heard learned counsel for the Parties and considering the submissions made, this Court finds that the appellate authority while rejecting the appeal vide order dtd.17.07.2015 under Annexure-10 has not assigned any reason. Since reason is the very basis of an order, this Court on that ground only is inclined to quash the order dtd.17.07.2015 so passed by the appellate authority under Annexure-10. While quashing the same, this Court remits the matter to the appellate authority to take up the appeal and dispose of the same by passing a reasoned order within a period of two(2) months from the date of receipt of this order.

9. Accordingly, the Writ Petition stands disposed of.

Signature Not Verified (Biraja Prasanna Satapathy) Digitally Signed Judge Signed by: SUBRAT KUMAR BARIK Reason: Authentication Location: HIGH COURT SubratOF ORISSA, CUTTACK Date: 12-Oct-2023 17:39:58