Orissa High Court
Rikhiram Chandrakar vs The State Of Odisha And Ors. .... ... on 30 January, 2025
Author: S.K. Panigrahi
Bench: S.K. Panigrahi
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR
Designation: AR-CUM-SR. SECRETARY
Reason: Authentication
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
Date: 03-Feb-2025 18:34:02
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
W.P.(C) No.10970 of 2024
(In the matter of an application under Articles 226 and 227 of the
Constitution of India, 1950).
Rikhiram Chandrakar .... Petitioner(s)
-versus-
The State of Odisha and Ors. .... Opposite Party (s)
Advocates appeared in the case through Hybrid Mode:
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Bhabani Shankar Dasparida, Adv.
For Opposite Party (s) : Mr. S.N. Pattnaik, AGA
CORAM:
DR. JUSTICE S.K. PANIGRAHI
DATE OF HEARING:-10.01.2025
DATE OF JUDGMENT:-30.01.2025
Dr. S.K. Panigrahi, J.
1. In this Writ Petition, the Petitioner seeks quashing of the order dated
03.04.2024 passed by GA (Vigilance) Department, which mandates a de
novo inquiry. Additionally, the petitioner asserts his entitlement to
promotion and associated benefits, premised on the closure of the
original disciplinary proceeding.
I. FACTUAL MATRIX OF THE CASE:
2. The brief facts of the case are as follows:
Designation: AR-CUM-SR. SECRETARY
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
Date: 03-Feb-2025 18:34:02
(i) A disciplinary proceeding was initiated against the petitioner under
Rule-15 of the OCS (CC&A) Rules, 1962. This proceeding was based on
Koraput Vigilance P.S. Case No. 27, dated 04.07.2017. The Sub-Collector
of Nabarangpur, acting as the Inquiring Officer, submitted an inquiry
report on 09.09.2020, concluding that the charges against the petitioner
were unsubstantiated.
(ii) The petitioner filed W.P. (C) No. 35168/2022 before the High Court of
Orissa seeking:
a. Disposal of the disciplinary proceeding initiated in 2019.
b. Promotion to the post Assistant District Welfare Officer (ADWO).
c. Grant of notional services benefits.
(iii) On 23.12.2022, the High Court directed the Director of ST (Opposite
Party No. 2) to conclude the disciplinary proceedings within two
months. If not concluded, it would be deemed that the disciplinary
proceeding had been dropped, and the petitioner's case for promotion
would be considered.
(iv) Following the High Court's directive, the Disciplinary Authority closed
the proceeding on 04.05.2023.
(v) The GA (Vigilance) Department reviewed the closure of the disciplinary
proceedings. It observed that the Inquiring Officer had not examined
critical witnesses, including Vigilance Officers cited as evidence in the
case. The inquiry report was criticized for relying only on select
depositions and reports without sufficient evidence.
(vi) Based on the Vigilance Department's findings, a de novo inquiry was
ordered on 03.04.2024. The new inquiry was tasked with examining
Designation: AR-CUM-SR. SECRETARY
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
Date: 03-Feb-2025 18:34:02
Vigilance Officers and other critical evidence to ensure a fair
investigation.
(vii) Aggrieved by the initiation of the new inquiry, the petitioner seeks
quashing of the order for a de novo inquiry. He further claims
entitlement to promotion and associated benefits based on the closure of
the original disciplinary proceeding.
II. SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER:
3. Learned counsel for the Petitioner earnestly made the following
submissions in support of his contentions:
(i) The petitioner contends that the order for a de novo inquiry is illegal,
arbitrary, and violates his rights under Articles 14, 16, and 300-A of the
Constitution. The petitioner has already been exonerated through a
proper inquiry, and reopening the case amounts to harassment.
(ii) The petitioner argues that the selection of beneficiaries under Indira
Awas Yojana was the responsibility of PEOs, not the WEO. His role was
limited to counter-signing bills after the PEOs had completed their
selection process.
(iii) The petitioner highlights the damage caused to his career due to the
delayed closure of proceedings, loss of promotions, and the holding up
of increments and benefits since 2017.
(iv) He points to this Court's earlier directive to conclude the proceedings
within a stipulated time, which was complied with, and proceedings
were closed on 04.05.2023.
(v) The petitioner alleges that the de novo inquiry was ordered vindictively
after the High Court showed an inclination to quash the criminal case
Designation: AR-CUM-SR. SECRETARY
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
Date: 03-Feb-2025 18:34:02
(CRLMC No. 2783/2021). He asserts that the re-opening of the case is in
bad faith, ignores established principles of law, and is not supported by
substantive evidence.
III. SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE OPPOSITE PARTIES:
4. The Learned Counsel for the Opposite Parties earnestly made the
following submissions in support of his contentions:
(i) The Opposite Party contends that the original inquiry was incomplete,
as the Inquiring Officer failed to examine key witnesses, particularly
Vigilance Officer cited in the memo of evidence.
(ii) The decision to order de novo inquiry is justified on the grounds of
procedural irregularities and inadequate examination of evidence in the
initial inquiry. The re-investigation aims to address these shortcomings
and ensure justice.
(iii) It is claimed that the petitioner used the exoneration from the
disciplinary proceeding to seek quashing of a related criminal case
(CRLMC No. 2783/2021) before this Court.
(iv) The GA (Vigilance) Department argues that the original inquiry report
was insufficient and flawed, necessitating a re-evaluation of the case
through a de novo inquiry. Accordingly, the Opposite party urges the
court to dismiss the writ petition, arguing that the petitioner's
contentions are unsustainable and lack merit.
IV. COURT'S REASONING AND ANALYSIS:
5. Heard Learned Counsel for parties and perused the documents placed
before this Court.
Designation: AR-CUM-SR. SECRETARY
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
Date: 03-Feb-2025 18:34:02
6. The present dispute arises from disciplinary proceedings initiated
against the petitioner concerning Koraput Vigilance P.S. Case No. 27.
Pursuant to a directive issued by the Hon'ble High Court, the
disciplinary authority concluded the proceedings on May 4, 2023.
Subsequently, the GA (Vigilance) Department, upon reviewing the
closure, identified significant procedural deficiencies. Notably, the
Inquiring Officer had failed to examine critical witnesses, including
Vigilance Officers whose testimonies were pivotal to the matter. The
inquiry report was further criticized for relying disproportionately on
selective depositions and reports, without sufficiently addressing the
evidentiary foundation of the charges. Acting on these findings, the
Vigilance Department directed the initiation of a de novo inquiry on
03.04.2024.
7. The pivotal question before this Court is whether a de novo inquiry can
be lawfully initiated after the disciplinary proceedings have already
been concluded. This issue necessitates a careful examination of the
relevant procedural framework governing disciplinary proceedings,
particularly Rule 15 of the Odisha Civil Services (Classification, Control,
and Appeal) Rules, 1962
8. Rule 15(1) establishes the foundational principle that no order
imposing penalties, as enumerated under Clauses (vi) to (ix) of Rule 13,
may be passed against a government servant without conducting an
inquiry, which must adhere to the prescribed procedures. This
safeguards the fundamental rights of the employee while ensuring that
disciplinary actions are based on due process.
Designation: AR-CUM-SR. SECRETARY
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
Date: 03-Feb-2025 18:34:02
9. Clause (2) of Rule 15 outlines the initial stages of the disciplinary
process, mandating the framing and written communication of charges,
accompanied by a detailed statement of allegations. This clause also
affords the government servant an opportunity to submit a written
statement of defense. Under Clause (3), the charged officer is entitled to
inspect and extract relevant official records, subject to certain limitations
to ensure procedural fairness and transparency.
10. Clause (4) delineates the authority of the Disciplinary Authority to
either conduct an inquiry into the charges not admitted by the
government servant or, if deemed necessary, appoint a Board of Inquiry
or an Inquiring Officer for the purpose.
11. At the conclusion of the inquiry, Clause (7) mandates the Inquiring
Authority to prepare a comprehensive report, recording findings on
each charge along with the reasons. The clause permits findings on
charges differing from those originally framed, provided the
government servant has either admitted the facts constituting such
charges or has been afforded an opportunity to defend against them.
12. Under Clause (9), the Disciplinary Authority, if distinct from the
Inquiring Authority, must consider the inquiry's record and
independently record its findings on each charge. Clause (10) further
provides for the issuance of a show-cause notice, ensuring that the
government servant is granted an additional opportunity to respond
before any final decision is rendered.
13. It appears to this Court that Rule 15, by its very nature, contemplates a
singular inquiry, carefully constructed to ensure both justice and
Designation: AR-CUM-SR. SECRETARY
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
Date: 03-Feb-2025 18:34:02
procedural regularity. However, there may arise those rare instances
where the inquiry, though undertaken, falls short of its intended
purpose. If a grievous defect has permeated the proceedings,
undermining their integrity, or if critical witnesses, whose testimony
could illuminate the matter, were absent or left unexamined for reasons
that bear scrutiny, the Disciplinary Authority may justly direct the
Inquiry Officer to gather further evidence.
14. The questions of competence to direct a de novo inquiry is well-settled
in law and no longer open to doubt. A wealth of judicial precedents has
firmly addressed this issue, providing clarity and guidance on its
contours. In this context, the Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court,
in K.R. Deb v. The Collector of Central Excise, Shillong 1 deliberated on
the statutory framework under the Central Civil Services (Classification,
Control, and Appeal) Rules, 1957. These provisions, which closely
parallel those of the Odisha Civil Services (Classification, Control, and
Appeal) Rules, 1962, were examined with precision to determine the
boundaries of a disciplinary authority's power to order a fresh inquiry.
The relevant portion of this judgment is produced below:
"It seems to us that Rule 15, on the face of it, really provides
for one inquiry but it may be possible if in a particular case
there has been no proper enquiry because some serious defect
has crept into the inquiry or some important witnesses were
not available at the time of the inquiry or were not examined
for some other reason, the Disciplinary Authority may ask the
Inquiry Officer to record further evidence. But there is no
provision in rule 15 for completely setting aside previous
1971 AIR 1447.
Designation: AR-CUM-SR. SECRETARY
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
Date: 03-Feb-2025 18:34:02
inquiries on the ground that the report- of, the Inquiring
Officer or Officers does not appeal to the disciplinary,
Authority-. The Disciplinary Authority has enough powers to
reconsider the evidence itself and come to its own conclusion
under rule 9.."
15. The aforementioned judgment was later revisited and reaffirmed by the
Supreme Court in Union of India and Others v. P. Thayagarajan.2 In
this case, the Court undertook a meticulous examination of the
principles laid down in K.R. Deb (Supra) and further substantiated its
findings. The relevant excerpt is produced below:
"A careful reading of this passage will make it clear that this
court notices that if in a particular case where there has been
no proper enquiry because of some serious defect having crept
into the inquiry or some important witnesses were not
available at the time of the inquiry or were not examined, the
Disciplinary Authority may ask the Inquiry Officer to record
further evidence but that provision would not enable the
Disciplinary Authority to set aside the previous enquiries on
the ground that the report of the Enquiry Officer does not
appeal to the Disciplinary Authority. In the present case the
basis upon which the Disciplinary Authority set aside the
enquiry is that the procedure adopted by the Enquiry Officer
was contrary to the relevant rules and affects the rights of the
parties and not that the report does not appeal to him. When
important evidence, either to be relied upon by the department
or by the delinquent official, is shut out, this would not result
in any advancement of any justice but on the other hand result
in a miscarriage thereof. Therefore we are of the view that Rule
27(c) enables the Disciplinary Authority to record his findings
on the report and to pass an appropriate order including
ordering a de novo enquiry in a case of present nature."
AIR 1999 SUPREME COURT 449.
Designation: AR-CUM-SR. SECRETARY
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
Date: 03-Feb-2025 18:34:02
16. Upon careful consideration of the judicial precedents and the relevant
statutory provisions, it is evident that where procedural rules are
framed, they must be followed with strict fidelity. In this context, it is
undeniable that the OCS (CC&A) Rules, 1962, do not explicitly confer
upon the disciplinary authority the power to order a de novo inquiry.
However, equally, the rules do not expressly preclude such an order.
The language of the provisions is broadly framed, offering discretion to
the disciplinary authority without prescribing an exhaustive
enumeration of permissible orders.
17. At this juncture, it would be appropriate for this Court to peruse the
Supreme Court's judgment of State of Assam and Anr. v. J.N. Roy
Biswas3 . The Supreme Court in this case, upholding the stance that the
disciplinary authority can always order fresh enquiry, held as under:
"We may however make it clear that no government servant
can urge that if for some technical or other good ground,
procedural or other, the first enquiry or punishment or
exoneration is found bad in law that a second enquiry cannot
be launched."
18. The aforementioned precedent found further resonance in the case of
Anand Narain Shukla v. State of Madhya Pradesh.4 In this matter, the
inquiry proceedings were concluded, but upon the filing of a writ
petition, the initial inquiry was quashed. Subsequently, fresh
proceedings were initiated on the same charges, which culminated in
findings of guilt on certain counts, and appropriate punishment was
1975 AIR 2277.
1979 AIR 1923.
Designation: AR-CUM-SR. SECRETARY
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
Date: 03-Feb-2025 18:34:02
imposed. When challenged in a second writ petition, the petitioner
argued that a fresh inquiry on identical charges was impermissible. The
High Court, however, rejected this contention and dismissed the
petition. The Supreme Court upheld the decision of the High Court and
observed that:
"..The earlier order was quashed on the technical ground. On
merits, a second enquiry could be held. It was rightly held.."
19. In alignment with the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in the
aforementioned cases, the Delhi High Court, in Nahar Singh v. Union of
India and Others5 articulated a similar position and held as under:
"From the aforesaid decisions of the Supreme Court it would
follow that, depending on the facts of each case, it is possible to
order de novo enquiry if there has been no proper enquiry
because of any serious defect. If, for example, principles of
natural justice have been violated, then it is open to the
disciplinary authority to come to the conclusion that a de novo
enquiry should be held."
20. Upon careful consideration of the relevant provisions and the
abovementioned precedents and drawing parallels of the same with the
case in hand, it can be observed that the Vigilance Department has
identified substantial deficiencies in the initial inquiry. Notably, the
Inquiring Officer failed to examine critical witnesses, including
Vigilance Officers whose testimonies were cited as crucial in the memo
of evidence.
1991 (21) DRJ 171.
Designation: AR-CUM-SR. SECRETARY
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
Date: 03-Feb-2025 18:34:02
21. Moreover, the inquiry report relied disproportionately on select
depositions and reports without adequately addressing the evidentiary
foundation of the charges. These omissions constitute grave procedural
defects that undermine the veracity and fairness of the inquiry process,
rendering its conclusions unreliable. The initiation of a de novo inquiry
in such circumstances is, therefore, justified to cure these defects and
ensure a thorough and impartial examination of the charges.
22. The petitioner's reliance on the closure of the disciplinary proceedings
on 04.05.2023 and the subsequent directive of this High Court to
consider his promotion does not preclude the initiation of a de novo
inquiry where procedural defects are later identified. While the closure
of the proceedings was in compliance with the earlier directive of this
Court, the subsequent review by the Vigilance Department has revealed
serious lapses that warrant further investigation. The petitioner's claim
that the de novo inquiry was ordered vindictively or in bad faith is
unsubstantiated and unsupported by evidence. Administrative actions,
unless proven to be tainted by malice or arbitrariness, are presumed to
be taken in good faith and in the discharge of official duties.
V. CONCLUSION:
23. In light of the foregoing analysis, this Court is of the considered view
that the initiation of the de novo inquiry is lawful, justified, and
necessary to address the procedural deficiencies in the initial inquiry.
24. However, the dismissal of the petitioner's case must not be interpreted
as a license for the disciplinary authorities to perpetuate similar lapses
in the future. It is the solemn duty of those entrusted with disciplinary
Designation: AR-CUM-SR. SECRETARY
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
Date: 03-Feb-2025 18:34:02
proceedings to conduct their inquiries with utmost diligence, fairness,
and fidelity to procedural norms. The errors committed in the initial
inquiry have exacted a heavy toll on the petitioner, compelling him to
endure the ordeal of repeated scrutiny, a burden that ought to have
been avoided had the process been conducted with the rigor and
thoroughness demanded of such proceedings.
25. Accordingly, this Court directs the disciplinary authorities to conclude
the de novo inquiry within an unextendable period of two months from
the date of this judgment. Let this timeline be adhered to with the
urgency and seriousness befitting the solemn duty at hand.
26. Thus, the Petitioner's challenge to the order dated 03.04.2024 is devoid
of merit and is, accordingly, dismissed.
27. Interim order, if any, passed earlier stands vacated.
(Dr.S.K. Panigrahi)
Judge
Orissa High Court, Cuttack,
Dated the 30th January, 2025/
