Orissa High Court
Chitrasen Sabar vs State Of Odisha And on 22 October, 2024
Author: Biraja Prasanna Satapathy
Bench: Biraja Prasanna Satapathy
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
W.P.C(OA) No.1718 of 2017
Chitrasen Sabar .... Petitioner
Mr. A. Acharya, Advocate
-versus-
State of Odisha and
Others .... Opposite Parties
Mr. D.K. Mohanty, ASC
CORAM:
JUSTICE BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY
ORDER
22.10.2024
Order No.
05. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid
Arrangement (Virtual/Physical) Mode.
2. Heard Mr. A. Acharya, learned counsel for the
Petitioner and Mr. D.K. Mohanty, learned Addl. Standing
Counsel for the State.
3. The Petitioner has filed the present Writ Petition
with the following prayer: -
"The applicant prays for the following
reliefs:
(i) The Hon'ble Tribunal kindly admit
and allow this Original Application.
(ii) Hon'ble Tribunal kindly quash the
departmental proceeding as it is not
tenable in the eye of law.
(iii) Hon'ble Tribunal kindly grant any
other relief/reliefs in favour of the
applicant as deem fit necessary for
ends of justice."
// 2 //
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that
the departmental proceeding which is the subject matter
of challenge in the Writ Petition, was initiated on self-
same charges as like the criminal proceeding in which he
was convicted vide judgment dated 10.08.2017.
4.1. It is contended that challenging the order of
conviction and sentence, petitioner approached this Court
by filing CRLA No.514 of 2017 and this Court while
admitting the appeal, allowed the petitioner to go on bail
with staying of the fine so imposed.
4.2. It is contended that since the proceeding initiated
against the petitioner vide Annexure-3 on 20.11.2015 is
on self-same charges as like the criminal proceeding, the
authorities are not competent to proceed with the same
on the face of the pendency of the appeal before this
Court. It is further contended that the Tribunal vide order
dated 30.04.2018 passed an interim order to the effect
that no final order shall be passed in the departmental
proceeding without leave of the Tribunal.
4.3. It is accordingly contended that since in the
disciplinary proceeding and the criminal proceeding
charges are same, the departmental proceeding is
required to be quashed by this Court.
5. Learned Addl. Standing Counsel on the other hand
basing on the counter affidavit filed by O.P. Nos.2 and 3,
contended that the disciplinary proceeding initiated
against the petitioner though is with self-same charges as
// 3 //
like the criminal proceeding, but since the petitioner has
been convicted in the criminal proceeding against which,
appeal is pending before this Court in Criminal Appeal
No.514 of 2017, the authorities may be permitted to
proceed with the departmental proceeding so initiated
against the petitioner on 20.11.2015 under Annexure-3.
It is also contended that this Court while admitting the
appeal never stayed the order of conviction and sentence
and accordingly petitioner is to be taken as a convicted
employee.
5.1. It is however contended that because of the interim
order passed by the Tribunal on 30.04.2018, O.P. No.2,
as the disciplinary authority, is unable to proceed with
the matter.
6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and
considering the submissions made, this Court finds that
the present Writ Petition was filed by the petitioner
seeking quashing of the disciplinary proceeding so
initiated against him vide Memorandum dated
20.11.2015 under Annexure-3, on the ground that on
self-same charges, petitioner is facing the criminal
proceeding. As found from the record, petitioner has
already been convicted in the criminal proceeding and the
appeal filed against such order of conviction and sentence
though is pending before this Court in CRLA No.514 of
2017, but there is no interim order staying the operation
of order of conviction and sentence.
// 4 //
6.1. Since this Court while admitting the appeal, has not
stayed the order of conviction and sentence, this Court is
not inclined to entertain the prayer as made in the Writ
Petition. It is open for the O.P. No.2 to proceed with the
disciplinary proceeding and pass appropriate order in
accordance with law. However, any order of punishment
to be imposed in the disciplinary proceeding shall be
subject to final outcome of Criminal Appeal No.514 of
2017.
7. The Writ Petition is disposed of. Interim order
passed earlier stands vacated.
(Biraja Prasanna Satapathy)
Judge
Basudev
Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack
Date: 28-Oct-2024 11:30:13
