Orissa High Court
Satyabadi Sahoo vs Union Of India And Others .... Opposite ... on 25 June, 2024
Author: S.K. Panigrahi
Bench: S.K. Panigrahi
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR
Reason: Authentication
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
Date: 18-Jul-2024 16:37:51
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
W.P.(C) No. 5429 of 2018
(An application under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India)
Satyabadi Sahoo .... Petitioner (s)
-versus-
Union of India and others .... Opposite Party (s)
Advocates appeared in this case through Hybrid Arrangement Mode:
For Petitioner (s) : Mr. Agasti Kanungo,
Advocate,
For Opposite Party (s) : Mr. Chandrakanta Pradhan,
CGC
CORAM:
DR. JUSTICE S.K. PANIGRAHI
DATE OF HEARING:-07.05.2024
DATE OF JUDGMENT: -25.06.2024
Dr. S.K. Panigrahi, J.
1. The Petitioner, in this Writ Petition has challenged the order passed by
the disciplinary authority inflicting the punishment of compulsory
retirement, order of Appellate Authority as well as Revisional Authority.
I. FACTUAL MATRIX OF THE CASE:
2. The Petitioner entered into the service in the year 1989. The Petitioner
while working at CISF Unit BVFCL Namrup was suspended from service
by the Deputy Commandant CISF Unit BVFCL Namrup vide order
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
No.17-403 dated 26.01.2017 for no reasons attributable to the petitioner or
any other valid reason sustainable in the eye of law.
3. The said order of the Deputy Commandant had not been approved at the
time of imposition of the suspension order by the Competent Authority.
Furthermore, the Petitioner has not received the subsistence allowance
from the date of suspension i.e. 26.01.2017 till the date of compulsory
retirement order dated 22.06.2017.
4. The Petitioner was charge sheeted by virtue of the Memorandum No.
1240 dated 13.02.2017/14.02.2017 of the Commandant. The charge sheet
was issued under 2 heads.
i) Sri Satyabadi Sahoo HC/Constable No. 894500709 HC/GD is
charged with the allegation that on 26.01.2017 at about 1245 he has
beaten & scolded the CISF/Constable SWPR No 974670140 Sri P.C.
Majumdar, which speaks of the gross indiscipline, thereby
misconduct.
ii) The HC/Constable No.894500709 Sri Satyabadi Sahoo has been
inflicted with 2 minor penalty but inspite of the fact did not amend
himself.
5. The charge-sheet was that on 26.01.2017 at about 12.30 P.M one Cons/
SWPR P.C Majumdar at the behest of the Dy. Commandant, one gunny
bag of waste garbage scattered near the bed of the petitioner. When the
petitioner protested the said work of P.C. Majumdar, he ran away and
scolded this petitioner in filthy language. It is alleged that the petitioner
forcefully bowed down his neck towards gunny bag of waste garbage
and as preplanned for no reason whatsoever, Majumdar threw a piece of
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
brick towards the petitioner by which the petitioner sustained injury to
the toe of his left leg. In this connection, the petitioner was administered
with medicine.
6. Unfortunately, without any reasonable ground and without granting
leave to the Petitioner, the opposite parties called upon the Petitioner on
28.2.2017, at about 1700 hrs and apprised the Petitioner that Asst.
Commandant Anil Kumar and Insp/Exe Borker K.K. I of CISF Unit, Oll,
Duliajan were appointed as Enquiry Officer and Presenting Officer. The
said two Officers orally examined the Petitioner in detailed manner. The
said facts have also been mentioned in the Preliminary Inquiry. The
petitioner categorically mentioned in his application that after availing
the twenty days leave, he would be able to attend the Inquiry. But the
Commandant disallowed the leave application stating therein that the
petitioner has not mentioned the leave periods in the leave application
with connected documents, which is totally wrong and incorrect.
II. PETITIONER'S SUBMISSIONS:
7. Learned counsel for the Petitioner earnestly made the following
submissions in support of his contentions:
8. The Petitioner was served notice of Inquiry (Ann-R/12 to R/17) at his
native place at Meramundali through Commandant/ CISF unit Angul and
after imposition of the penalty of compulsory retirement, the rejection of
appeal and revisional orders were communicated and served in his home
address.
9. The petitioner applied for leave on 26.02.2017 specifically stating that his
daughter and son shall appear Std X CBSE and no other member at home
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
to accompany his daughter to exam centre at 70 km away. Hence, he
should be allowed 20 days leave from 4.3.2017. But, the request was
refused and the petitioner compelled to cancel the ticket. The petitioner
had purchased ticket, only after approval of the leave committee, which is
reflected in the leave register itself. The petitioner again requested for
leave on 3.03.2017, the same has also been refused. Finding, no way out
the petitioner left the Headquarter on 5.3.2017 for home. The petitioner
reached at home on 7.03.2017 and got ill due to the physical and mental
stress.
10. The petitioner was served all the letters of enquiry through the
Commandant, CISF, Angul and the petitioner had always addressed his
application to the Commandant and the Enquiry officer with the medical
certificates to defer the enquiry. The petitioner could have been examined
by the doctors and he could have been ascertained and examined through
the Commandant CISF, Angul by examining him at Angul Hospital itself.
11. The petitioner reported to the Commandant on 26.04.2017 with the entire
medical certificate. But, the same was refused and compelled to give
defence statement. The Enquiry Officer concluded the proceeding
Ex-parte.
12. The inquiry is in complete violation of natural justice and behind the back
of the petitioner, simply on the statements of PWs in preliminary Enquiry
without being controverted and utilized the same in the regular inquiry.
13. The findings of the Inquiry Officer is malafide and perverse. It is crystal
clear that the statements of the P.W. 2 and P.W.3 and their statements
from the Exhibits 1 and 2 in preliminary enquiry without same being
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
controverted in the inquiry proceedings has been utilized. Therefore, the
entire enquiry is perverse and vitiated.
14. From the findings at Charge No.2, it is also established that the Inquiry
Officer has only relied upon the statements of CW-2 (Complainant
Witness) and his statements in preliminary enquiry and the Exts 1 and 2
of the PWs in preliminary enquiry without the same being controverted
in the proceeding.
15. The observation of the Inquiry Officer to the effect that "he is not
amenable to the discipline of the force" exceeds the jurisdiction, meaning,
thereby, "to dispense with the services of the petitioner". The Inquiry
Officer has imported his own knowledge and there is bias and malafides.
The Inquiry Officer is biased by the two minor penalty "Censure" and
"stoppage of one increment non-cumulative" in 1996-1997, before the
petitioner is promoted as Head Constable 2010. There is no punishment
as Head Constable.
III. SUBMISSIONS OF OPPOSITE PARTIES:
16. Per contra, learned counsel for the Opposite Parties intently made the
following submissions:
17. Learned counsel for the Opposite Parties submits that the entire
disciplinary proceedings were drawn up against the petitioner and his
appeal was also finalized at CISF Unit OIL Duliajan (Assam) which falls
under the territorial jurisdiction of Guwahati High Court. Further, his
Revision Petition was disposed of at CISF NES HQrs, Kolkata which falls
under the territorial jurisdiction of High Court of Calcutta. As such the
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
petitioner has to file his Writ Petition either in the High Court of
Guwahati or Calcutta. But, he failed to approach the appropriate forum
and filed this Writ Petition before this Court. Therefore, the present Writ
Petition is liable to be dismissed in limine on the ground of lack of
territorial jurisdiction.
18. The petitioner while serving at CISF Unit BVFCL Namrup was dealt with
under Rule-36 of CISF Rules, 2001 vide Charge Memorandum No. V-
15014/Maj-03/SBS/L&D/OIL(D)/2017-1240 dated 13.02.2017 for the
following charges:-
CHARGE-1
CISF NO. 894500709 HC/GD Satyabadi Sahoo (Suspended) of CISF unit
BVFCL Namrup is accused of assaulting and verbally abusing CISF No.
974670140 CT/Swpr P C Majumdar on dated 26.01.2017 at about 1245 hrs.
As a disciplined member of the force this act of HC/GD Satyabadi Sahoo
(Suspended) manifests gross misconduct, irresponsible behavior and
indiscipline on his part. Hence, the charge.
CHARGE-2
CISF No. 694500709 HC/GD Satyabadi Sahoo (Suspended) of CISF UNE
BVFCL, Namrup has been awarded 02 minor Punishments for various
indiscipline acts during his past service, in spite of this he has falled to
improve his conduct. Hence the Charge.
19. The petitioner acknowledged the charge memorandum along with listed
documents on 14.02.2017. In his reply dated 22.02.2017, he denied the
charges framed against him. Hence, the Asstt. Commandant and Insp/Exe
Borker KK I of CISF Unit OIL Duliajan were appointed as Inquiry Officer
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
and Presenting Officer vide Order No. (1602) and No.(1603) dated
27.02.2017 respectively to conduct the Departmental Enquiry. The
petitioner was directed to attend preliminary hearing on 02.03.2017.
Accordingly, the Inquiry Officer conducted departmental enquiry as per
laid down procedure and the petitioner was given ample opportunities to
defend his case effectively. In the meanwhile, the petitioner left the Unit
lines on his own without any permission of the Competent Authority
with effect from 03.03.2017. Further, several inquiry notices were sent to
the petitioner's permanent home address by Regd. Post with a direction
to attend the Departmental Enquiry(DE) at CISF Unit OIL Duliajan. But,
the petitioner did not attend the departmental enquiry and intentionally
avoided to attend the departmental enquiry taking pleas of permission
leave, disturbed mind and medical rest etc.
20. During the course of departmental enquiry, the inquiry officer, recorded
the statements of all Prosecution Witnesses in the presence of Presenting
officer. At last, due to attitude non-cooperation of the petitioner, the
Inquiry Officer was left with no options but to conduct the departmental
inquiry ex-parte. The petitioner reported from overstay (AWL) and
appeared before the Inquiry Officer on 02-5-2017 and deposed of his
defense statement.
21. The petitioner submitted his written representation against the Inquiry
Report on 09.06.2017. After careful examination of charge sheet, reply to
the charge sheet submitted by the petitioner, inquiry report and the
documentary evidences available on record before the Disciplinary
Authority, Commandant CISF Unit OIL Duliajan, Assam vide Order No.
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
15014/Maj-03/SBS/L&D/OIL (D)/2017-1149 dated 22.06.2017 awarded the
punishment of "Compulsory retirement from service with full pensionary
benefits with immediate effect".
22. Being aggrieved by the said punishment order, the petitioner preferred
an appeal before the Appellate Authority i.e DIG, CISF Unit OIL Duliajan
on 13.07.2017, which was considered and after considering all the aspects
and after proper application of mind, the same was rejected being devoid
of merit vide Appellate Order No. V- 11014/Appeal/DIG/SBS/L&D/OIL
(D)/2017-1681 dated 25-09- 2017.
23. Being further aggrieved by the final order and Appellate Order, the
petitioner preferred a Revision petition dated 18.10.2017 and part revision
petition dated 17- 11-2017 to the Revisional Authority i.e. IG CISF NES
HQrS., Kolkata which was considered and after considering all the
aspects and after proper application of mind, the same was rejected being
devoid of merit vide Revision Order No. V- 11014/CISF/NES/LC/Rev-
16/2017-1805 dated 12.02.2018.
24. The petitioner was sanctioned pension vide PPO No. 236081704078 issued
under RPAO, Kolkata Order/Letter No. 17/407 dated 20.11.2017. Since
then, the petitioner is drawing monthly pension from his declared Bank
from the date of retirement onwards. It is fact that after drawing pension
and all other pensionary benefits from the department/GOI, filing of
instant Writ Petition against penalty of "Compulsory retirement from
service with full pensionary benefits" at this stage is not at all justifiable.
The petitioner has suppressed the material facts in his writ application
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
regarding drawal of pension and receipt of other pensionary benefits
from the department after his retirement from service.
25. In fact, the facts stated and submissions made in the writ petition are not
all correct and far from truth. Hence, this Writ Petition filed by the
Petitioner is liable to be dismissed.
IV. COURT'S ANALYSIS AND REASONS:
26. The Petitioner received the charge memorandum and the accompanying
documents on February 14, 2017. In his reply dated February 22, 2017, he
denied the charges against him. Consequently, the Assistant
Commandant and Inspector/Executive Borker KK I of CISF Unit OIL
Duliajan were appointed as the Inquiry Officer and Presenting Officer,
respectively, as per Orders No. (1602) and No. (1603) dated February 27,
2017, to conduct the departmental enquiry. The petitioner was instructed
to attend a preliminary hearing on March 2, 2017. Following this, the
Inquiry Officer conducted the departmental enquiry according to the
established procedures, ensuring that the petitioner got ample
opportunities to defend his case.
27. However, the Petitioner left the Unit lines without any authorization from
the Competent Authority starting from March 3, 2017. Multiple inquiry
notices were subsequently sent to the petitioner's permanent home
address via registered post, instructing him to attend the departmental
enquiry at CISF Unit OIL Duliajan. Despite these notices, the petitioner
failed to attend the inquiry, citing reasons such as the need for leave, a
disturbed state of mind, and medical rest.
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
28. During the departmental inquiry, the Inquiry Officer recorded the
statements of all prosecution witnesses in the presence of the Presenting
Officer. Due to the petitioner's non-cooperative behavior, the Inquiry
Officer had no choice but to proceed with the inquiry ex-parte. The
petitioner, having overstayed his leave (AWL), eventually reported back
and appeared before the Enquiry Officer on May 2, 2017, to provide his
defense statement.
29. The petitioner submitted a written representation against the Inquiry
Report on June 9, 2017. After a thorough review of the charge sheet, the
petitioner's reply to the charge sheet, the inquiry report, and the
documentary evidence on record, the Disciplinary Authority,
Commandant CISF Unit OIL Duliajan, Assam, issued Order No.
15014/Maj-03/SBS/L&D/OIL (D)/2017-1149 dated June 22, 2017, imposing
the punishment of "Compulsory retirement from service with full
pensionary benefits with immediate effect."
30. Dissatisfied with this punishment, the petitioner filed an appeal with the
Appellate Authority, DIG, CISF Unit OIL Duliajan, on July 13, 2017. After
careful consideration and application of mind, the appeal was rejected as
meritless via Appellate Order No. V-11014/Appeal/DIG/SBS/L&D/OIL
(D)/2017-1681 dated September 25, 2017.
31. Still aggrieved by the final order and the Appellate Order, the petitioner
submitted a Revision petition on October 18, 2017, followed by a part
revision petition on November 17, 2017, to the Revisional Authority, IG
CISF NES HQrs., Kolkata. After a comprehensive review and proper
application of mind, the revision was also rejected as devoid of merit, as
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
communicated in Revision Order No. V-11014/CISF/NES/LC/Rev-
16/2017-1805 dated February 12, 2018.
32. The Petitioner was granted a pension through PPO No. 236081704078,
issued under RPAO, Kolkata Order/Letter No. 17/407 dated November
20, 2017. He has been receiving a monthly pension from his designated
bank since his retirement. Given that the Petitioner has been drawing a
pension and other retirement benefits from the government, filing the
present Writ Petition challenging the penalty of "Compulsory retirement
from service with full pensionary benefits" at this stage is unjustifiable.
The petitioner has failed to disclose the material fact that he has been
receiving a pension and other related benefits since his retirement.
33. Accordingly, this Court is not inclined to accede to the submission of the
Petitioner. With respect to the aforesaid discussion, this Court is not
inclined to entertain the prayer of the Petitioner.
34. This Writ Petition is dismissed.
35. Interim order, if any, passed earlier stands vacated.
( Dr. S.K. Panigrahi )
Judge
Orissa High Court, Cuttack,
Orissa High Court, Cuttack,
Dated the 25th June, 2024/
, 2023/
