Orissa High Court
Sunil Kumar Parida vs State Of Odisha & Ors. .... Opposite ... 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 11:39:33
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
W.P.(C) No. 3789 of 2024
(In the matter of an application under Articles 226 and 227 of the
Constitution of India, 1950).
Sunil Kumar Parida .... Petitioner(s)
-versus-
State of Odisha & Ors. .... Opposite Party (s)
Advocates appeared in the case throughHybrid Mode:
For Petitioner(s) : Smt. Subhasree Mohanty, Adv.
For Opposite Party (s) : Mr.Sonak Mishra, ASC
CORAM:
DR. JUSTICE S.K. PANIGRAHI
DATE OF HEARING:-15.01.2025
DATE OF JUDGMENT:-30.01.2025
Dr.S.K. Panigrahi, J.
1. The Petitioner, in the present Writ Petition, is challenging the order of
suspension dated 08.02.2024 passed by the Collector, Dhenkanal on the
grounds that it violates the procedure laid down in Rule 12 of the
Odisha Civil Service (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 1962.
I. FACTUAL MATRIX OF THE CASE:
2. The brief facts of the case are as follows:
(i) The petitioner is serving as the Panchayat Executive Officer for the
Sankulei and Kankadahada Gram Panchayats of Sadar Block,
Dhenkanal.
Designation: AR-CUM-SR. SECRETARY
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
Date: 03-Feb-2025 11:39:33
(ii) In pursuance of the order dated 06.02.2024 issued by the Block
Development Officer (‚BDO‛), Sadar Block, Dhenkanal; the petitioner
was assigned the duty of Nodal Officer to accompany devotees from his
Block to Puri for the 'Shree Mandir Parikrama Prakalpa' on 07.02.2024.
(iii) Further, by an order dated 08.02.2024, the BDO, Sadar Block,
Dhenkanal, assigned the petitioner the duty of Nodal Officer for
Sankulei Gram Panchayat for the implementation of the Information,
Education, and Communication (IEC) campaign by cultural troupes.
(iv) On 09.02.2024, upon reporting to the office, the petitioner was served
with a suspension order dated 08.02.2024 issued by the Collector,
Dhenkanal. The order placed the petitioner under suspension with
effect from 08.02.2024, based on a report dated 07.02.2024 submitted by
the BDO, Sadar Block, Dhenkanal, alleging misconduct, gross
negligence in government duties, indiscipline, and unauthorized
absence.
(v) Aggrieved by the order of suspension, the petitioner has approached
this court seeking its intervention.
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 contended that, pursuant to the order dated 06.02.2024
issued by the BDO, Sadar Block, Dhenkanal, he was assigned the duty
of Nodal Officer to accompany devotees from his Block to Puri for the
'Shree Mandir Parikrama Prakalpa' on 07.02.2024. Accordingly, he left
for Puri at 6:30 a.m. by the designated bus with the devotees and
Designation: AR-CUM-SR. SECRETARY
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
Date: 03-Feb-2025 11:39:33
returned to the Panchayat at approximately 10:30 p.m. On 08.02.2024, he
reported to the office and performed his duties without any complain.
However, despite efficiently discharging the assigned duties, he was
served with a suspension order dated 08.02.2024, issued by the
Collector, Dhenkanal, without prior notice or an opportunity for
hearing.
(ii) The petitioner submitted that the suspension order, which cites
allegations of misconduct, gross negligence, indiscipline, and
unauthorized absence, fails to substantiate these claims. The order is
based on a report dated 07.02.2024 from the BDO, which is quite
contradictory, as the petitioner was performing duties as instructed on
those very dates.
(iii) The petitioner further submitted that, despite the allegations, the said
BDO assigned him additional duties as Nodal Officer for Sankulei Gram
Panchayat on 08.02.2024 for the implementation of the IEC campaign by
cultural troupes. This assignment demonstratesthat the petitioner
continued to discharge his duties without any issue.
(iv) The petitioner contended that the suspension order violates Rule 12 of
the Odisha Civil Service (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 1962,
which permits suspension only when disciplinary proceedings are
contemplated or pending, or a criminal case is under investigation or
trial. No such proceedings have been initiated, and the petitioner is not
under any criminal investigation.
Designation: AR-CUM-SR. SECRETARY
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
Date: 03-Feb-2025 11:39:33
(v) The petitioner submitted that the suspension order is defective as it fails
to specify the period of unauthorized absence not does it alleges any
specific violation of the service rule.
(vi) The petitioner contended that he was neither provided with the
documents nor the evidence forming the basis of the suspension order,
nor was he given an opportunity to present his case. The suspension
was imposed hastily, without any inquiry, and in violation of the
principles of natural justice.
(vii) The petitioner has further submitted that the report allegedly received
from female devotees on 08.02.2024, which formed the basis of the
suspension, appears to be false and fabricated. The BDO could not have
reported the alleged indiscipline to the Collector on 07.02.2024, as the
complaint was only received on 08.02.2024. This raises serious doubts
about the authenticity of the report and the suspension order.
(viii) The petitioner has further contended that the respondents claimed a
fact-finding committee was constituted and suggested disciplinary
action on the same day. However, this raises concerns regarding the
authenticity of the fact-finding report, which appears fabricated or ante-
dated mechanism to justify the suspension.
(ix) The petitioner further stated that more than nine months have passed
without any review of the suspension order, causing undue hardship.
Further, the petitioner's representation to the Collector, Dhenkanal
remains pending and is yet to be decided. As the order of suspension
has not been reviewed for over nine months by the competent
authority, it is liable to be set aside. To buttress his argument, the
Designation: AR-CUM-SR. SECRETARY
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
Date: 03-Feb-2025 11:39:33
petitioner relied on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Union of
India & Others v. Dipak Mali1, wherein it was held that an order of
suspension must be reviewed by the competent authority, with a review
committee recommending either the extension or revocation of the
suspension before the expiry of ninety days.
(x) The petitioner further relied on this Court's judgment in Narayan Jena
v. State of Odisha & Others2, wherein it was held that the Collector has
no authority to take disciplinary action against a Panchayat Executive
Officer, as such authority lies with the Gram Panchayat.
(xi) The petitioner submitted that the order of suspension is illegal, unjust,
and liable to be quashed, and he should be reinstated in service along
with all consequential benefits.
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 petitioner, assigned as Nodal Officer for Sankulei and Gengutia
Gram Panchayats for the 'Shree Mandir Parikrama Prakalpa,' failed to
report to the GP headquarters by 5:00 AM on 07.02.2024, keeping his
phone switched off until 5:40 AM. Instead, he boarded the bus at
Dhenkanal Town, causing a delay of 1 hour and 30 minutes in the bus's
departure from the GP headquarters and creating disturbances among
the devotees regarding seating arrangements.
(2010) 2 SCC 222.
Designation: AR-CUM-SR. SECRETARY
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
Date: 03-Feb-2025 11:39:33
(ii) During the return journey, the petitioner, without prior permission,
stopped the bus at a Dhaba in Khuntuni around 9:00 PM, where he
allegedly consumed food and alcohol with the driver and some male
individuals in the presence of female devotees. This caused
embarrassment to the female devotees, who contacted the BDO, Sadar
Block, Dhenkanal and GPDO. Despite instructions to resume the
journey, the petitioner delayed the bus's departure by 30 minutes. The
vehicle resumed its journey only after intervention of the authority and
reached the GP at 11:00 PM. A written complaint was subsequently filed
by the female devotees against the conduct of the present Petitioner.
(iii) On 08.02.2024, the BDO, Sadar Block, Dhenkanal constituted a fact-
finding committee, which concluded that the petitioner's actions,
including his inebriated state at the Dhaba, constituted a serious breach
of trust and recommended immediate action. The Collector, Dhenkanal,
being the disciplinary authority, issued the suspension order dated
08.02.2024 in contemplation of departmental proceedings. The
petitioner's misconduct compromised the safety of the devotees and
created a chaotic situation throughout the journey.
(iv) Further, the petitioner has also demonstrated consistent irregular
attendance at the GP Office, as reported by the Sarpanch of Sankulei
G.P.
(v) The suspension order was lawfully issued, given the petitioner's
dereliction of duty and misconduct, and departmental proceedings are
appropriately being initiated.
Designation: AR-CUM-SR. SECRETARY
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
Date: 03-Feb-2025 11:39:33
IV. COURT'S REASONING AND ANALYSIS:
5. Heard the learned counsel for the Parties and perused the materials
placed on record.
6. The primary issue that requires adjudication in the instant matter is the
legality of the suspension order passed by the Collector, Dhenkanal.
7. In matters concerning suspension, courts generally exercise restraint
and refrain from interfering with suspension orders unless it is
demonstrated that the order was passed in bad faith or lacks prima facie
evidence connecting the employee to the alleged misconduct. The scope
of judicial review in suspension matters is not to serve as an appellate
forum. Rather, the Court's role is to ensure that the actions of the
concerned authority adhere to the principles of natural justice, and that
the suspension is not arbitrary or devoid of a reasonable basis.
8. Suspension, though a serious measure, may be employed as an interim
step to prevent interference with the investigation or the possibility of
further misconduct that could harm the interests of the State. It must be
imposed after careful consideration of the gravity of the charges and the
evidence available to the disciplinary authority, with the aim of
safeguarding the integrity of the investigation and preventing
compromise from the suspended employee's presence.
9. In O.P. Gupta v. Union of India,3 the Supreme Court has held that a
delinquent officer, when placed under suspension, is entitled to a
prompt resolution of the departmental proceedings. A delay in
completing such proceedings beyond a reasonable period would cause
(1987) 4 SCC 328
Designation: AR-CUM-SR. SECRETARY
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
Date: 03-Feb-2025 11:39:33
undue prejudice to the employee and render the suspension order
untenable.
10. Further, in yet another case travelled from this High Court, the Supreme
Court in State of Orissa v. Bimal Kumar Mohanty4 observed that
suspension should be based on the gravity of the alleged misconduct
and the evidence available before the disciplinary authority. The
authority must also determine whether suspension is necessary to
prevent further misconduct or to protect the integrity of the
investigation. Suspension cannot be imposed automatically and must
serve the purpose of facilitating the inquiry.
11. Similar sentiment has been resonated in Union of India v. Ashok Kumar
Aggarwal,5 wherein the Supreme Court observed that suspension
temporarily prohibits an employee from performing duties but does not
terminate the employment relationship or constitute punishment. It is
an interim administrative measure, not punitive in nature, even if it
may carry stigma in certain cases. The relevant portion is being
reproduced hereinunder:
"19. During suspension, the relationship of master and
servant continues between the employer and the employee.
However, the employee is forbidden to perform his official
duties. Thus, a suspension order does not put an end to the
service. Suspension means the action of debarring for the time
being from a function or privilege or temporary deprivation of
working in the office. In certain cases, suspension may cause
stigma even after exoneration in the departmental proceedings
or acquittal by the criminal court, but it cannot be treated as a
1994(4) SCC 126
(2013) 16 SCC 147
Designation: AR-CUM-SR. SECRETARY
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
Date: 03-Feb-2025 11:39:33
punishment even by any stretch of imagination in the strict
legal sense. (Vide O.P. Gupta v. Union of India and Capt. M.
Paul Anthony v. Bharat Gold Mines Ltd.)"
12. It is further a settled position of law that a suspension order cannot be
indefinite, and the departmental proceedings must be concluded within
a reasonable time.
13. Continued surpassion has been frowned by the Supreme Court in
Union of India and Others v. Dipak Mali,6 wherein it has been
observed that if the suspension order is not reviewed within the
prescribed ninety days period, or if an extension is not granted, the
suspension order becomes invalid. The Court further held that the
continued suspension of an employee beyond ninety days without
review or extension is impermissible.
14. In the same vein, in Ajay Kumar Choudhury v. Union of India,7 the
Supreme Court observed that suspension orders must be reviewed
within ninety days, failing which, the suspension becomes invalid and
is liable to be set aside.
15. In the present case, the Court finds it necessary to intervene, as the
suspension orderdated 08.02.2024, issued against the petitioner, was
neither reviewed nor extended within the stipulated 90-day
period.Suspension cannot be allowed to persist indefinitely, particularly
in the absence of any valid justification for such an
extension.Accordingly, the continued suspension of the petitioner is in
violation of established legal principles and is consequently invalid.
2010 SCC 2 224
(2015) 7 SCC 291
Designation: AR-CUM-SR. SECRETARY
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
Date: 03-Feb-2025 11:39:33
16. Furthermore, the petitioner was serving as a Panchayat Executive
Officer at the time of the suspension, hence, he was under the disposal
of the Panchayat. Hence, the Collector lacks jurisdiction to hand out
such punishment. In Nabakishore Mishra v. Collector, Dhenkanal,8 this
Court held that the Collector does not have jurisdiction over the services
of Village Level Workers (VLWs) posted as Panchayat Executive
Officers in the Gram Panchayats. If the VLWs are working under Gram
Panchayat as Executive Officers their duties and responsibility with
respect of to the duties in the Panchayat and their services within the
control of Gram Panchayat and the gram Panchayat may deal with any
indiscipline or negligence.
17. Further this court had the occasion to consider a similar issue in
Narayan Jena v. State of Odisha & Ors.9 wherein, it was held that the
power to take disciplinary action against Panchayat Executive Officers
rests with the Gram Panchayat and not with State Officers such as the
Collector.
18. This Court, upon careful consideration, is of the view that the facts of
the present case clearly warrant judicial intervention. The suspension
order passed against the petitioner has, without review or extension,
exceeded the prescribed three month period, thereby violating the
established principles governing suspension. Furthermore, it is evident
that the Collector, Dhenkanal, lacks the requisite authority to suspend
the petitioner.
2008 (11)OLR 530
Designation: AR-CUM-SR. SECRETARY
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
Date: 03-Feb-2025 11:39:33
V. CONCLUSION:
19. In light of the foregoing, this Court finds that the Collector, Dhenkanal,
lacked the authority to suspend the petitioner. Additionally, the
suspension order, having continued beyond ninety days without
review, deserves to be quashed and, accordingly, quashed.
20. Accordingly, this Writ Petition is allowed.
21. Interim order, if any, passed earlier stands vacated.
(Dr.S.K. Panigrahi)
Judge
Orissa High Court, Cuttack,
Dated the 30th January, 2025/
