Orissa High Court

Sushanta Shekhar Das @ vs The Managing Director 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.10103 of 2024
       (In the matter of an application under Articles 226 and 227 of the
       Constitution of India, 1950).

       Sushanta Shekhar Das @                    ....               Petitioner(s)
       Sushanta Sekhar Das
                                      -versus-
       The Managing Director,                    ....       Opposite Party (s)
       Odisha Civil Supplies
       Corporation Ltd. (Govt. of
       Odisha undertaking),
       Bhubaneswar &Ors.

     Advocates appeared in the case throughHybrid Mode:

       For Petitioner(s)         :                      Mr.Amitav Das, Adv.

       For Opposite Party (s)    :           Mr. Manoj Kumar Mohanty, ASC

                 CORAM:
                 DR. JUSTICE S.K. PANIGRAHI

                      DATE OF HEARING:-03.01.2025
                     DATE OF JUDGMENT:-30.01.2025
     Dr. S.K. Panigrahi, J.

1. The Petitioner has filed this Writ Petition seeking to quash the order

dated 05.01.2024 (communicated on 04.03.2024) issued by the Collector,

Sundargarh, as well as the disengagement order dated 03.08.2018 issued

by Opp. Party No.3. Additionally, the Petitioner requests a directive to

Opp. Party Nos. 2 and 3 to reinstate him as Assistant Programmer in

place of Opp. Party No.5 in the office of Opp. Party No.3.

Designation: AR-CUM-SR. SECRETARY

Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 03-Feb-2025 11:39:33

I. FACTUAL MATRIX OF THE CASE:

2. The brief facts of the case are as follows:

(i) The petitioner, SushantaShekhar Das, was engaged as an Assistant

Programmer at the CSO office in Sundargarh during the Kharif

Marketing Season (KMS) 2015-16. He was disengaged from service on

03.08.2018 due to alleged irregularities in the paddy procurement

process.

(ii) His role involved updating farmer registration data and verifying the

accuracy of land details as per the RI (Revenue Inspector) reports.

(iii) Irregularities were alleged in updating farmers' land data, which

resulted in farmers' selling paddy in excess of their actual surplus. This

led to financial losses to the government, including excess interest

payments on loans taken for MSP (Minimum Support Price) payments.

(iv) It was claimed that the petitioner failed to adhere to proper procedures

in verifying and updating land data, thereby enabling the discrepancies.

(v) Earlier, social activists filed WP(C) No.21639/2016, alleging corruption

in the LAMPCs of the Tangarpali Block, and this High Court directed

the Collector to investigate the matter. Based on subsequent inquiries,

including reports by the DRCS and CSO, the Collector identified

irregularities and directed disengagement of the petitioner.

(vi) A joint committee was constituted to investigate further. The report,

dated 29.01.2019, concluded that there were no irregularities at the CSO

level and no financial losses to the government or farmers. However,

the opposite parties argued that the joint enquiry report was incomplete

Designation: AR-CUM-SR. SECRETARY

Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 03-Feb-2025 11:39:33

and misleading, suppressing crucial facts and overlooking evidence of

irregularities.

(vii) The petitioner filed multiple writ petitions challenging his

disengagement, including WP(C) No.26285/2019 and WP(C)

No.25728/2023. This High Court directed fresh adjudication, but the

Collector rejected the petitioner's claims in orders dated 16.07.2020 and

05.01.2024. During the pendency of these proceedings, another

individual (Opp. Party No. 5) was appointed to the petitioner's position,

raising allegations of bias and malafide intent.

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 orders dated 05.01.2024 and 03.08.2018 are arbitrary, illegal, and

passed without proper application of mind. They disregarded the

findings of the joint enquiry report, which explicitly found no

irregularities.

(ii) The Collector failed to appreciate the petitioner's clarification (dated

27.10.2023) and ignored critical evidence from the joint enquiry report,

which absolved the petitioner of any wrongdoing.

(iii) The disengagement order was issued without giving the petitioner an

opportunity to be heard or a chance to clarify the allegations. Despite

multiple representations, the petitioner's grievances were dismissed

without proper consideration.

(iv) The appointment of Opp. Party No. 5 to the same position during the

pendency of the case suggests ulterior motives and prejudice against the

Designation: AR-CUM-SR. SECRETARY

Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 03-Feb-2025 11:39:33

petitioner. The Collector deliberately disregarded the court's directions

and findings of the enquiry report to protect other officers and

accommodate their preferred candidate.

(v) The enquiry report and subsequent clarifications established that no

financial loss occurred to either the government or farmers due to the

alleged irregularities. The petitioner's role as Assistant Programmer did

not involve verification of farmers' land details or paddy procurement,

negating any direct responsibility for the alleged discrepancies.

(vi) The petitioner, who has served the organization for 16-17 years with a

clean service record, has been unfairly targeted and disengaged at the

age of 46, with no alternative employment.

(vii) The Collector's failure to disclose the appointment of Opp. Party No. 5

in the rejection order dated 16.07.2020 raises further questions about the

fairness and transparency of the process.

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's disengagement was based on findings from multiple

investigations and was carried out following due legal procedures. The

Collector's order dated 05.01.2024 highlighted the petitioner's pivotal

role in data manipulation, which led to the irregularities.

(ii) Two primary documents, the Farmer Registration Status Report and the

RI Verification Report, were cited as evidence of discrepancies. The

petitioner allegedly ignored discrepancies in RI reports during data

Designation: AR-CUM-SR. SECRETARY

Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 03-Feb-2025 11:39:33

updates, enabling farmers to sell surplus paddy beyond their

entitlement.

(iii) The petitioner did not report challenges or seek guidance from higher

authorities, indicating negligence and lack of diligence. Despite being

entrusted with sensitive responsibilities, the petitioner failed to ensure

accuracy and compliance with government guidelines.

(iv) The joint enquiry report was criticized as incomplete and biased,

suppressing evidence and failing to identify irregularities at the CSO

office. The report allegedly downplayed the petitioner's role in the

discrepancies, leading to misleading conclusions.

(v) It is contended that the appointment of Opp. Party No. 5 was carried

out transparently and as per legal requirements. The petitioner's

allegations of bias were dismissed as baseless and an attempt to distract

from his misconduct.

(vi) The financial loss to the government included interest payments on

loans taken for excess MSP payments to farmers. These losses were

attributed to the petitioner's alleged manipulation of data.

IV. COURT'S REASONING AND ANALYSIS:

5. Heard Learned Counsel for parties and perused the documents placed

before this Court.

6. The crux of the present dispute centres on the petitioner's

disengagement from service following allegations of irregularities in the

paddy procurement process. The allegations pertain to discrepancies in

updating farmers' land data, which purportedly enabled farmers to sell

Designation: AR-CUM-SR. SECRETARY

Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 03-Feb-2025 11:39:33

paddy quantities exceeding their actual surplus. Subsequent inquiries,

including reports prepared by the District Registrar of Cooperative

Societies (DRCS) and the Chief Supply Officer (CSO), led the Collector

to identify irregularities and order the petitioner's disengagement.

However, a joint committee was later constituted to conduct a more

detailed investigation. In its report dated 29.01.2019, the committee

found no evidence of irregularities at the CSO level and determined that

neither the Government nor had the farmers suffered any financial loss.

Relying on this report, the petitioner contends that his disengagement

was unwarranted, unlawful, and motivated by mala fide intent.

7. The opposite parties, on the other hand, assert that the joint inquiry

report was both incomplete and biased, suppressing critical evidence

and failing to properly address the irregularities at the CSO office. They

contend that the report understated the petitioner's involvement in the

discrepancies, leading to conclusions that were misleading and lacked

impartiality. Despite several orders of this Court directing the Collector

to reexamine the petitioner's claim, the Collector upheld the

disengagement order, reasoning that the petitioner's conduct justified

the action taken against him.

8. The question that stands before this Court is whether the Collector's

order may be quashed on the strength of the joint inquiry report and

whether the petitioner can be restored to his service. To resolve this, this

Court must turn to a principle long embedded in the fabric of

administrative law jurisprudence; an inquiry report, while carrying the

weight of diligent examination, does not possess the mantle of

Designation: AR-CUM-SR. SECRETARY

Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 03-Feb-2025 11:39:33

adjudicatory finality. The conclusions of an inquiry officer are but the

opinions drawn from the materials at hand; they hold no binding

authority over the disciplinary power vested in the deciding authority.

It is this distinction, between recommendation and resolution, that the

law jealously preserves.

9. This principle has found voice in numerous decisions of the High

Courts and the Supreme Court, reinforcing its centrality to

administrative law. A notable affirmation appears in High Court

Judicature at Bombay v. Shashikant S. Patil and Anr.,1 where the

Supreme Court, with clarity and resolve, declared the following:

"The findings of the inquiry officer are only his opinion on the materials, but such findings are not binding on the disciplinary authority as the decision-making authority is the punishing authority and therefore that authority can come to its own conclusion of course bearing in mind the views expressed by the inquiry officer. But it is not necessary that the disciplinary authority should "discuss materials in detail and contest the conclusions of the inquiry officer". Otherwise the position of the disciplinary authority would get relegated to a subordinate level."

10. The legal position on this matter has also been articulated with

precision by the Supreme Court in the case of A. N. D'Silva v. Union Of

India2. The Court, in its wisdom, held that the findings of the inquiry

officer, as well as any recommendations offered therein, do not bind the

punishing authority. The relevant excerpt of this case is produced

below:

2000 (1) SCC 416

1962 AIR 1130

Designation: AR-CUM-SR. SECRETARY

Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 03-Feb-2025 11:39:33

"It is for the punishing authority to propose the punishment and not for the enquiring authority. The latter has, when so required, to appraise the evidence, to record its conclusion and if it thinks proper to suggest the appropriate punishment. But neither the conclusion on the evidence nor the punishment which the enquiring authority may regard as appropriate is binding upon the punishing authority."

11. If one examines the present case in the illuminating light of the

precedents cited, a compelling pattern emerges. The inquiry report,

while thorough in its scope, is not the final arbiter of the petitioner's

fate. Its findings, though grounded in evidence, are advisory in

character, serving as a guidepost rather than a directive for the

disciplinary authority.

12. Ultimately, it lies within the discretion of the Collector, who serves as

the appropriate punishing authority in this matter, to determine the

extent to which the joint inquiry report should be considered or relied

upon. The Collector, after carefully evaluating the evidence presented

and weighing the circumstances surrounding the case, reached the

conclusion that the petitioner's disengagement was warranted.

13. The next question before this Court is to ascertain the extent to which

judicial interference is warranted in the circumstances of this case. In

the realm of Administrative Law, it is a well-settled principle that

courts, while exercising judicial review over disciplinary proceedings,

are not to re-evaluate the merits of the decision or substitute their

judgment for that of the disciplinary authority. Instead, the scope of

intervention is confined to examining whether: (i) the inquiry was

Designation: AR-CUM-SR. SECRETARY

Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 03-Feb-2025 11:39:33

conducted by a competent authority; (ii) the principles of natural justice

were adhered to; and (iii) the findings or conclusions are supported by

some evidence, and whether the authority had the power and

jurisdiction to arrive at the findings of fact or conclusions in question.

14. This principle has been consistently upheld in a plethora of judicial

precedents, reinforcing its foundational role in administrative law. One

such landmark case is Deputy General Manager (Appellate Authority)

v. Ajai Kumar Srivastava.3The relevant excerpts of this case are

produced hereinbelow:

"24. It is thus settled that the power of judicial review, of the constitutional courts, is evaluation of the decision-making process and not the merits of the decision itself. It is to ensure fairness in treatment and not to ensure fairness of conclusion. The court/tribunal may interfere in the proceedings held against the delinquent if it is, in any manner, inconsistent with the rules of natural justice or in violation of the statutory rules prescribing the mode of enquiry or where the conclusion or finding reached by the disciplinary authority is based on no evidence. If the conclusion or finding be such as no reasonable person would have ever reached or where the conclusions upon consideration of the evidence reached by the disciplinary authority are perverse or suffer from patent error on the face of record or based on no evidence at all, a writ of certiorari could be issued. To sum up, the scope of judicial review cannot be extended to the examination of correctness or reasonableness of a decision of authority as a matter of fact.

25-27 xx xxxx

28. ....

The constitutional court while exercising its jurisdiction of judicial review under Article 226 or Article 136 of the

(2021) 2 SCC 612.

Designation: AR-CUM-SR. SECRETARY

Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 03-Feb-2025 11:39:33

Constitution would not interfere with the findings of fact arrived at in the departmental enquiry proceedings except in a case of mala fides or perversity i.e. where there is no evidence to support a finding or where a finding is such that no man acting reasonably and with objectivity could have arrived at those findings and so long as there is some evidence to support the conclusion arrived at by the departmental authority, the same has to be sustained."

15. If the principles of the abovementioned case are applied to the case in

hand, it becomes clear that the inquiry was conducted by a competent

authority in accordance with the prescribed rules. The petitioner was

afforded the opportunity to present his defense, fulfilling the essential

requirements of natural justice. The Collector, serving as the

disciplinary authority, reviewed the evidence, including the inquiry

report, and exercised his discretion in determining that the petitioner's

disengagement was justified. This decision was based on evidence

presented in the form of reports by the DRCS and CSO and was neither

arbitrary nor unsupported by material facts.

16. Consequently, the Collector's decision to disengage the petitioner,

having been reached after a proper appraisal of evidence and in