[Cites 1, Cited by 0]
Orissa High Court
Saroj Kumar Mohanty vs State Of Odisha & Ors on 2 December, 2025
Author: Biraja Prasanna Satapathy
Bench: Biraja Prasanna Satapathy
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
W.P.(C) No.35845 of 2022
Saroj Kumar Mohanty ....
Petitioner
Mr. S. Jena, Advocate
-versus-
State of Odisha & Ors.
.... Opposite Parties
Mr. P.K. Panda, ASC
Mr. M.R. Pradhan, Adv. for O.P.4
CORAM:
JUSTICE BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY
ORDER
02.12.2025
Order No.
04. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid
Arrangement (Virtual/Physical) Mode.
2. Mr. S. Jena, learned counsel appearing for the
Petitioner contended that he does not intend to file any
rejoinder to the counter.
3. Heard learned counsel appearing for the Parties.
4. The present Writ Petition has been filed inter alia
challenging the order of punishment passed by the
disciplinary authority-Opposite Party No.3 on
20.06.2008 under Annexure-18, further confirmed by
the appellate authority by Opposite Party No.2 vide
order dtd.20.01.2021 under Annexure-24.
5. It is contended that in the proceeding initiated
against the Petitioner, Petitioner was imposed with the
// 2 //
punishment vide order dtd.20.06.2008 under
Annexure-8 and was imposed with the following
punishment:-
"(i) He is removed from service with immediate effect.
(ii) The period of suspension is treated as such".
5.1. It is contended that against such an order passed
by the disciplinary authority-Opposite Party No.3,
Petitioner though filed an appeal by taking various
grounds, but the appellate authority vide the impugned
order dtd.20.01.2021 under Annexure-24 simply
rejected the same without assigning any reason.
5.2. It is contended that since reason is the soul of
any order and no reason whatsoever has been
assigned by the appellate authority-Opposite Party
No.2 in rejecting the appeal, the order passed by the
said authority under Annexure-24 is not sustainable
in the eye of law.
5.3. In support of his submission, learned counsel
appearing for the Petitioner relied on the decisions of
this Court reported in 2013 (Supp.1) OLR-736 and
2012(1) OLR-87.
5.4. 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.
// 3 //
xxx xxx xxx
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]".
5.5. 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 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".
5.6. It is accordingly contended that the matter be
remitted to Opposite Party No.2 to take a fresh decision
on the appeal so filed by the Petitioner under
Annexure-20.
6. Even though a counter affidavit has been filed by
Opposite Party Nos.2 to 4, justifying the impugned
order of punishment passed under Annexure-18, so
confirmed vide order under Annexure-24 and the
submission was made accordingly but this Court since
finds that the appellate authority-Opposite Party No.2
while rejecting the appeal vide order dtd.20.01.2021
under Annexure-24, has not assigned any reason
whatsoever, placing reliance on the aforesaid decisions
of this Court so cited (supra), this Court is inclined to
quash order dtd.20.01.2021 so passed by Opposite
// 4 //
Party No.2 under Annexure-24. While quashing the
said order, this Court remits the matter to Opposite
Party No.2 to take a fresh decision on the appeal filed
by the Petitioner under Annexure-20 within a period of
two (2) months from the date of receipt of this order.
Petitioner is permitted to provide a copy of this order
before Opposite Party No.2 for compliance. Petitioner is
also permitted to submit any case law supporting his
claim before the Opp. Party No.2, which shall be taken
into consideration in its proper perspective.
7. Accordingly, the Writ Petition stands disposed of.
(Biraja Prasanna Satapathy)
Subrat Judge
Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACK
