Orissa High Court
Satya Ranjan Mohanta vs State Of Odisha And Others on 18 March, 2025
Author: Arindam Sinha
Bench: Arindam Sinha, M.S. Sahoo
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
W.A. No.354 of 2025
Satya Ranjan Mohanta .... Appellant
-Versus-
State of Odisha and others .... Respondents
Advocates appeared in this case:
For Appellant : Mr. R.N. Mishra, Advocate
For Respondents : Mr. D. Mohanty,
Additional Government Advocate
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARINDAM SINHA,
ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.S. SAHOO
JUDGMENT
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Date of hearing and judgment: 18th March, 2025
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ARINDAM SINHA, ACJ.
1. Mr. Mishra, learned advocate appears on behalf of appellant and
submits, his client is aggrieved by order dated 24th September, 2024 of
the learned single Judge partly allowing the writ petition. His client
wanted to submit defence to the charge. By impugned order, his client
was relegated to position of replying to the second show cause notice.
2. He draws attention to impugned order dated 24 th September,
2024 to point out, thereby was found major lacuna on part of the
disciplinary authority in concluding the proceeding by imposing
punishment. The learned single Judge failed to appreciate facts that
went before. They are that show cause notice dated 31st August, 2019
stood issued to his client giving him 30 days to, inter alia, submit his
written statement of defence. The notice did not include copies of
documents, on basis of which the charge was proposed to be sustained.
His client made prayer for those documents being furnished. He draws
attention to letter dated 14th October, 2019, whereby his client was
given access to the documents. Text of the letter is reproduced below.
"You are directed to attend the Office of the
undersigned during the office hour within 3 (three)
days from issue of this letter and receive the required
documents as desired for submission of statement of
defence on charge framed against you.
This is for your information and necessary action."
The Inquiry Officer (IO) issued notice dated 23rd October, 2019 for
commencement of enquiry. In these facts, this Court in appeal should
interfere to set aside the inquiry report upon direction for his client's
response to be filed and considered on fresh enquiry.
3. Mr. Mohanty, learned advocate, Additional Government
Advocate appears on behalf of State. He submits, the charge was
production of fake document to obtain appointment. Strict adherence to
disciplinary procedure was not required in the circumstances. In any
event, respondent no.5 (Disciplinary Authority/DA), in obedience to
impugned order will proceed for considering imposing punishment
upon response had from appellant on the second show cause notice. No
interference in appeal is warranted.
4. Mr. Mohanty draws attention to a paragraph in the report,
reproduced below.
"I asked to Sri Satya ranjan Mohanta to submit the
C.T. certificate and mark sheet in support with his
claim in defense of the charges framed against him but
he stated that no certificate is existing with him and
had submitted all his relevant certificates in course of
appointment in his personal file. I tried to find out his
personal file with Sri Bhagabat Mohanta
Marshalling Officer, but it was not found. Moreover,
he stated that if his personal file would be returned
back to him he would have submitted all his
certificates. In course of inquiry the delinquent
submitted a written defense wherein he stated that he
has passed C.T. exam genuinely and by mistake the
Board of Secondary Education, Cuttack has proved
his C.T. certificate and mark sheet a fake one. He has
passed the C.T. exam and able to get his engagement."
(emphasis supplied)
He submits, appellant had and has no defence to the charge. He
reiterates, there be no interference in appeal. On query, he submits, the
forged document was not disclosed in the counter filed.
5. We have seen relevant rules in Odisha Civil Services
(Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1962. There is no
controversy before us that the major lacuna noticed by the learned
single Judge existed in the disciplinary proceeding. Question for
adjudication is, whether appellant should be given an opportunity to
place his defence in the enquiry, upon said inquiry report dated 25th
October, 2019, set aside.
6. We had made query to Mr. Mohanty on perusal of relied upon
paragraph in the inquiry report, reproduced above. It is clear from the
paragraph that the alleged fake/forged document was not produced in
the enquiry. In preceding paragraph of the report, there is conclusion by
the IO that the document must be fake, being a pass certificate, when
appellant had failed in the examination. To us, this is insufficient for
proceeding to recommend punishment on finding guilt, as done by the
IO in the report.
7. Furthermore, the disciplinary proceeding containing major lacuna
required a stage in it to be redone, as directed by the learned single
Judge. As such, respondent no.5 cannot assert resistance to further
interference, when it itself caused the lacuna. When there has to be
restoration of a stage in the proceeding and there are facts to show
appellant was not furnished documents in time, as being good reason
for not submitting his statement of defence in time along with view
expressed in last preceding paragraph, we think fit to set aside the
inquiry report and restore the proceeding to holding of fresh enquiry.
We further direct appellant will file written statement of defence by 28 th
March, 2025. In the meantime, respondent no.5 will appoint some other
competent persons as per the rules as IO, to enter upon and conduct the
inquiry.
8. Impugned order is modified to above extent. The appeal is
disposed of.
( Arindam Sinha )
Acting Chief Justice
( M.S. Sahoo )
Judge
M. Panda/A. Nanda
Designation: Junior Stenographer
Location: High Court of Orissa
Date: 20-Mar-2025 12:11:18
