Orissa High Court
Dr. Surendranath Mahapatra vs State Of Odisha & Ors. .... Opposite ... on 6 May, 2025
Author: Biraja Prasanna Satapathy
Bench: Biraja Prasanna Satapathy
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
W.P.(C) No. 18094 of 2019
In the matter of an application under Articles 226 & 227 of the
Constitution of India.
..................
Dr. Surendranath Mahapatra .... Petitioner
-versus-
State of Odisha & Ors. .... Opposite Parties
For Petitioners : Mr. N. Rath, Advocate
For Opp. Parties : Mr. C.K. Pradhan,
Addl. Govt. Advocate
PRESENT:
THE HON'BLE JUSTICE BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Date of Hearing: 02.04.2025 & Date of Judgment: 06.05.2025
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Biraja Prasanna Satapathy, J.
The present writ petition has been filed inter alia challenging
order dtd.02.05.2018 so passed by Opp. Party No. 1 under Annexure-
16 and further order passed by the self-same Opp. Party No. 1 on
09.01.2020 under Annexure-18.
// 2 //
2. Vide order dtd.02.05.2018 Opp. Party No. 1 while disposing the
proceeding so initiated against the Petitioner vide Memorandum
dtd.06.12.2011 under Annexure-2, imposed the punishment of
withholding of 10% of monthly pension for a period of 10 years. Vide
order dtd.09.01.2020 under Annexure-18 the period of suspension
from 20.04.2011 to 30.06.2016 was treated as such.
3. Learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner contended that
Petitioner while continuing as a Lecturer in Education, DPIASE,
Berhampur, he was placed under suspension with immediate effect
vide office order dtd.20.04.2011 under Annexure-1. Subsequent
thereto, the proceeding under Rule 15 of OCS (CCA) Rules, 1962 (in
short Rules) was initiated against the Petitioner vide Memorandum
dtd.26.12.2011 under Annexure-2 with the following charges:-
"Dr. S.N. Mohapatra, Reader in Education in D.P.I.A.S.E. Berhampur has
committed gross misconduct and injustice to his post and duty abusing his official
position during his incumbency as Render in Education of D.P.I.A.S.E.
Berhampur.
1. Being a teacher, whose profession should be noble in the society has involved
himself in an inhumanly nature of work, resulting Attempt of rape to a young Girl
of the Institution prosecuting her M. A. Part-I study.
// 3 //
2. In order to satisfy his beastly desire, he forced the concerned girl to oblige him
physically, to obtain higher marks/percentage in the ensuing examination and
even mishandled her, shamelessly touching the secret organs of her body.
3. Further, he is not co-operative with the head of the Institution/Co-workers and
not even to other students and behaves very hardly/ruthlessly and defies the
Instructions of the Head of the Institution a very often.
4. Besides, he keeps himself always in a drunken state during the College hours
also. He resorts to Gundaism and does not attend to duties properly.
5. His habit f of making sexual harassment to the girls students in the institution
has been very chronic.
He is, therefore, charged with.
a) Disobedience to the higher authority.
b) Highly irregular in duty and not loyal to the authority.
c) An indisciplined and arrogant employee embarrassing the staffs of own College
and students.
d) Irresponsible behaviour with in humanly attitude.
(UNDER SUSPENSION)
1) He has committed gross misconduct and high injustice to his post and duty.
2) He has disobeyed the orders of the higher authority.
3) He has embarrassed his fellow colleagues and students of the Institution
making the entire atmosphere poisonous.
4) He has very irresponsible and irrational behaviour.
5) He use to exploit Girls students sexually at the cost of their career and
mishandles them very inhumanly."
// 4 //
3.1. Learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner contended that
challenging the action of the Petitioner with regard to harassment
caused to the girl student, a criminal proceeding was also initiated
against him, which culminated in Sessions Case No. 58 of 2012 in the
file of learned Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge, Ganjam,
Berhampur in Sessions Case No. 58 of 2012. In the said criminal
proceeding Petitioner was acquitted for the offences under Sec.
294/506 of the I.P.C. and Sec. 3(1)(xi) and 3(1)(xii) of the SC & ST
(PA) Act, 1989.
3.2. It is contended that since Petitioner in the criminal proceeding so
initiated against him was honourably acquitted vide Judgment
dtd.22.11.2012 under Annexure-3, on the face of such acquittal in the
criminal proceeding, Petitioner could not have been held guilty of the
charges in the disciplinary proceeding so initiated vide Memorandum
dtd.26.12.2011 under Annexure-2.
3.3. It is also contended that in the proceeding so initiated under
Annexure-2, Petitioner was never provided with the documents as
provided under Rule 15(3) of the Rules and thereby disentitling him to
file his written statement of defence.
// 5 //
3.4. It is contended that since the document basing on which the
charges were framed against the Petitioner, were never provided to the
Petitioner in spite of several requests, the enquiry could not have been
made with submission of the enquiry report under Annexure-4. It is
also contended that the enquiry officer who happens to be the
Commissioner of Departmental Enquiries & Ex-Officio, Additional
Secretary to Govt., G.A. Department though recommended that
Petitioner may be censured, but on the face of such opinion of the
Enquiry Officer, Petitioner without being provided with the 2nd show-
cause as provided under rule 15(10)(i)(b) of the Rules when was
imposed with the punishment of dismissal from service vide office
order dtd.14.07.2014 of Opp. Party No. 1 under Annexure-5,
Petitioner challenging the said order approached the Odisha
Administrative Tribunal (in short Tribunal) by filing O.A. No. 3087 of
2014.
3.5. It is contended that the Tribunal vide its order dtd.24.03.2017
under Annexure-6 while quashing the order of dismissal passed on
14.07.2014 under Annexure-5, remitted the matter to Opp. Party No. 1
to consider the matter from the stage of supply of documents,
affording opportunity of hearing in compliance with the principle of
// 6 //
natural justice and to pass appropriate order. Para 15 of the order
containing the aforesaid direction reads as follows:-
"15. In view of the above discussion, as the proceeding has not
been conducted fairly, the order of punishment of dismissal vide
Annexure-15 dtd.04.07.2014 passed by the disciplinary
authority is quashed. However, keeping n view the gravity of the
charges against the applicant, the matter is remitted back to the
respondent No.1/Disciplinary authority with a direction to
consider the matter from stage of supply of documents affording
opportunity of hearing in compliance with the principle of
natural justice and pass appropriate order, within a period of
four months from the date of receipt a copy of this order. As the
order of dismissal has been quashed, the applicant should be
treated under suspension till the date he was due
superannuation."
3.6. It is contended that even though the Tribunal vide order
dtd.24.03.2017 under Annexure-6 while remitting the matter to Opp.
Party No. 1 directed the said authority to start the proceeding from the
stage of supply of the documents, but without providing the
documents and to start the proceeding from that stage, vide notice
dtd.27.12.2017 Petitioner was issued with the 1st show-cause by
enclosing the enquiry report under Annexure-9.
3.7. It is contended that in the meantime basing on the application
made by the Petitioner, Petitioner was sanctioned with the provisional
// 7 //
pension vide order dtd.20.01.2018 under Annexure-13
w.e.f.01.07.2016 as the Petitioner in the meantime had retired from his
service on attaining the age of superannuation w.e.f.30.06.2016.
3.8. It is further contended that since by the time the Tribunal remitted
the matter vide order under Annexure-6, Petitioner had already
attained the age of superannuation on 30.06.2016, Opp. Party No. 1
while issuing the 2nd show-cause vide letter dtd.16.02.2018 under
Annexure-14, proposed the punishment of withholding of 10% of
monthly pension for a period of 10 years in terms of the provisions
contained under Rule 7 of OCS (Pension) Rules, 1992 (in short
Pension Rules, 1992).
3.9. Learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner contended that
Petitioner though gave a reply against the proposed punishment vide
his representation dtd.24.02.2018 under Annexure-15, but without
proper appreciation of the same, the impugned order of punishment
was passed vide office order dtd.02.05.2018 under Annexure-16 with
imposition of the punishment of withholding of 10% of monthly
pension for a period of 10 years.
// 8 //
3.10. It is also contended that while disposing the proceeding vide
order dtd.02.05.2018, no order was passed as to how the period of
suspension w.e.f.20.04.2011 till the Petitioner attained the age of
superannuation on 30.06.2016 has to be treated.
3.11. However, challenging the order of punishment passed on
02.05.2018 Petitioner when made a further representation before Opp.
Party No. 1 on 15.05.2018 under Annexure-17, vide order
dtd.09.01.2020 under Annexure-18, the period of suspension
w.e.f.20.04.2011 to 30.06.2016 was treated as such.
3.12 It is contended that since while disposing the proceeding vide
order dtd.02.05.2018 under Annexure-16, the period of suspension
was not taken note of with passing of any order, no further order could
have been passed to treat the same as such vide office order
dtd.09.01.2020 under Annexure-18.
3.13 It is also contended that with passing of the order dtd.02.05.2018
under Annexure-16, since the proceeding was finally disposed of,
Opp. Party No. 1 became functus officio with regard to the said
proceeding and no further order could have been passed to treat the
period of suspension as such vide order under Annexure-18. It is also
// 9 //
contended that since the charges so framed against the Petitioner in
the proceeding initiated under Annexure-2, there is no allegation of
misappropriation of any amount, withholding of 10% of pension for a
period of 10 years so imposed vide the impugned order
dtd.02.05.2018 under Annexure-16 is not sustainable in the eye of
law.
3.14. In support of such submission, reliance was placed to a decision
of this Court dt.12.08.2024, in W.P.C.(O.A.) No. 1314 of 2017. This
Court in para 6.1 of the said order has held as follows:-
"6.1. It is also found that even though petitioner after receipt of
the 2nd show-cause dated 09.12.2010 under Annexure-10,
submitted his reply under Annexure-11, but the proceeding was
not disposed of till the petitioner attained the age of
superannuation on 31.03.2011. In view of such analysis, this
Court is inclined to quash the order of punishment imposed on
the petitioner vide order dated 12.05.2015 under Annexure-14
so confirmed vide order dated 04.03.2017 under Annexure-17.
While quashing both the orders under Annexure-14 and 17, this
Court allows the Writ Petition and directs O.P. No.1 to release
the withheld pension, within a period of 2(two) months from the
date of receipt of this order."
3.15. A further contention was also raised that since on self-same
issue Petitioner was honorably acquitted by the learned trial court vide
its Judgment dtd.22.11.2012 in Sessions Case No. 58 of 2012 under
// 10 //
Annexure-3, on the face of such honorable acquittal, Petitioner could
not have bee imposed with any punishment in the disciplinary
proceeding so initiated against him vide Annexure-2.
3.16. In support of the said submission reliance was placed to a
decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Commissioner of
Police, New Delhi & Anr. Vs. Mehar Singh (Civil Appeal No. 4842
of 2013) disposed of on 02.07.2013. Hon'ble Apex Court in the case
of Mehar Singh in Para 20 & 21 has held as follows:-
"20. We find no substance in the contention that by cancelling the
respondents' candidature, the Screening Committee has
overreached the judgments of the criminal court. We are aware
that the question of co-relation between a criminal case and a
departmental inquiry does not directly arise here, but, support can
be drawn from the principles laid down by this Court in connection
with it because the issue involved is somewhat identical namely
whether to allow a person with doubtful integrity to work in the
department. While the standard of proof in a criminal case is the
proof beyond all reasonable doubt, the proof in a departmental
proceeding is preponderance of probabilities. Quite often criminal
cases end in acquittal because witnesses turn hostile. Such
acquittals are not acquittals on merit. An acquittal based on benefit
of doubt would not stand on par with a clean acquittal on merit
after a full fledged trial, where there is no indication of the
witnesses being won over. In R.P. Kapur v. Union of India (AIR
1964 SC 787) this Court has taken a view that departmental
// 11 //
proceedings can proceed even though a person is acquitted when
the acquittal is other than honourable.
21. The expression 'honourable acquittal' was considered by this
Court in S. Samuthiram. In that case this Court was concerned with
a situation where disciplinary proceedings were initiated against a
police officer. Criminal case was pending against him under
Section 509 of the IPC and under Section 4 of the Eve-teasing Act.
He was acquitted in that case because of the non-examination of
key witnesses. There was a serious flaw in the conduct of the
criminal case. Two material witnesses turned hostile. Referring to
the judgment of this Court in Management of Reserve Bank of
India, New Delhi v. Bhopal Singh Panchal (1994) 1 SCC 541,
where in somewhat similar fact situation, this Court upheld a
bank's action of refusing to reinstate an employee in service on the
ground that in the criminal case he was acquitted by giving him
benefit of doubt and, therefore, it was not an honourable acquittal,
this Court held that the High Court was not justified in setting
aside the punishment imposed in departmental proceedings. This
Court observed that the expressions 'honourable acquittal',
'acquitted of blame' and 'fully exonerated' are unknown to the
Criminal Procedure Code or the Penal Code. They are coined by
judicial pronouncements. It is difficult to define what is meant by
the expression 'honourably acquitted'. This Court expressed that
when the accused is acquitted after full consideration of
prosecution case and the prosecution miserably fails to prove the
charges leveled against the accused, it can possibly be said that the
accused was honourably acquitted. In light of above, we are of the
opinion that since the purpose of departmental B proceedings is to
keep persons, who are guilty of serious misconduct or dereliction
of duty or who are guilty of grave cases of moral turpitude, out of
the department, if found necessary, because they pollute the
// 12 //
department, surely the above principles will apply with more
vigour at the point of entry of a person in the police department i.e.
at the time of recruitment. If it is found by the Screening Committee
that the person against whom a serious case involving moral
turpitude is registered is discharged on technical grounds or is
acquitted of the same charge but the acquittal is not honourable,
the Screening Committee would be entitled to cancel his
candidature. Stricter norms need to be applied while appointing
persons in a disciplinary force because public interest is involved
in it."
3.17. Reliance was also placed to a decision of the Hon'ble Apex
Court in the case of G.M. Tank Vs. State of Gujarat & Ors. (2006) 5
SCC 446. Hon'ble Apex Court in the following Para 30 & 31 of the
said judgment has held has follows:-
"30. The judgments relied on by the learned counsel appearing for
the respondents are not distinguishable on facts and on law. In this
case, the departmental proceedings and the criminal case are
based on identical and similar set of facts and the charge in a
Departmental case against the appellant and the charge before the
Criminal Court are one and the same. It is true that the nature of
charge in the departmental proceedings and in the criminal case is
grave. The nature of the case launched against the appellant on the
basis of evidence and material collected against him during
enquiry and investigation and as reflected in the charge sheet,
factors mentioned are one and the same. In other words, charges,
evidence, witnesses and circumstances are one and the same. In
present case criminal and disciplinary proceedings have already
noticed or granted on the same set of facts namely, raid conducted
// 13 //
at the appellant's residence, recovery of articles therefrom. The
Investigating Officer, Mr. V.B. Raval and other departmental
witnesses were the only witnesses examined by the Enquiry Officer
who by relying upon their statement came to the conclusion that the
charges were established against the appellant. The same witnesses
were examined in the criminal case and the criminal court on the
examination concluded that the prosecution has not proved the
guilt alleged against the appellant beyond any reasonable doubt
and acquitted the appellant by his judicial pronouncement with the
finding that the charge has not been proved. It is also to be noticed
the judicial pronouncement was made after a regular trial and on
hot contest. Under these circumstances, it would be unjust and
unfair and rather oppressive to allow the findings recorded in the
departmental proceedings to stand.
31. In our opinion, such facts and evidence in the department as
well as criminal proceedings were the same without there being
any iota of difference, the appellant should succeed. The distinction
which is usually proved between the departmental and criminal
proceedings on the basis of the approach and burden of proof
would not be applicable in the instant case. Though finding
recorded in the domestic enquiry was found to be valid by the
Courts below, when there was an honourable acquittal of the
employee during the pendency of the proceedings challenging the
dismissal, the same requires to be taken note of and the decision in
Paul Anthony's case (supra) will apply. We, therefore, hold that the
appeal filed by the appellant deserves to be allowed."
3.18. Further reliance was also placed to a decision of the Hon'ble
Apex Court in the case of Ram Lal Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.
// 14 //
(2024) 1 SCC 175. Hon'ble Apex Court in Para 13 and 24 to 26 of the
said Judgment has held as follows:-
"13. However, if the charges in the departmental enquiry and the
criminal court are identical or similar, and if the evidence,
witnesses and circumstances are one and the same, then the matter
acquires a different dimension. If the court in judicial review
concludes that the acquittal in the criminal proceeding was after
full consideration of the prosecution evidence and that the
prosecution miserably failed to prove the charge, the Court in
judicial review can grant redress in certain circumstances. The
court will be entitled to exercise its discretion and grant relief, if it
concludes that allowing the findings in the disciplinary proceedings
to stand will be unjust, unfair and oppressive. Each case will turn
on its own facts. [See G.M. Tank vs. State of Gujarat & Others,
(2006) 5 SCC 446, State Bank of Hyderabad vs. P. Kata Rao,
(2008) 15 SCC 657 and S. Samuthiram (supra)]
xxx xxx xxx
24. What is important to notice is that the Appellate Judge has
clearly recorded that in the document Exh. P-3 - original
marksheet of the 8th standard, the date of birth was clearly shown
as 21.04.1972 and the other documents produced by the
prosecution were either letters or a duplicate marksheet. No doubt,
the Appellate Judge says that it becomes doubtful whether the date
of birth was 21.04.1974 and that the accused was entitled to
receive its benefit. However, what we are supposed to see is the
substance of the judgment. A reading of the entire judgment clearly
indicates that the appellant was acquitted after full consideration
of the prosecution evidence and after noticing that the prosecution
// 15 //
has miserably failed to prove the charge [See S. Samuthiram
(Supra).]
25. Expressions like "benefit of doubt" and "honorably acquitted",
used in judgments are not to be understood as magic incantations.
A court of law will not be carried away by the mere use of such
terminology. In the present case, the Appellate Judge has recorded
that Ext. P-3, the original marksheet carries the date of birth as
21.04.1972 and the same has also been proved by the witnesses
examined on behalf of the prosecution. The conclusion that the
acquittal in the criminal proceeding was after full consideration of
the prosecution evidence and that the prosecution miserably failed
to prove the charge can only be arrived at after a reading of the
judgment in its entirety. The court in judicial review is obliged to
examine the substance of the judgment and not go by the form of
expression used.
26. We are satisfied that the findings of the appellate judge in the
criminal case clearly indicate that the charge against the appellant
was not just, "not proved" - in fact the charge even stood
"disproved" by the very prosecution evidence. As held by this
Court, a fact is said to be "disproved" when, after considering the
matters before it, the court either believes that it does not exist or
considers its non-existence so probable that a prudent man ought,
under the circumstances of the particular case, to act upon the
supposition that it does not exist. A fact is said to be "not proved"
when it is neither "proved" nor "disproved" [See Vijayee Singh and
Others v. State of U.P. (1990) 3 SCC 190]."
3.19. Making all these submissions learned counsel appearing for the
Petitioner contended that the impugned order of punishment passed on
02.05.2018 under Annexure-16 and further order passed on
// 16 //
09.01.2020 under Annexure-18 are not sustainable in the eye of law
and requires interference of this Court.
3.20. It is also contended that even though Petitioner has retired from
his service on attaining the age of superannuation on 30.06.2016, save
and except the provisional pension, he has not been released with his
pensionary benefits.
4. Mr. C.K. Pradhan, learned Addl. Govt. Advocate on the other hand
made his submissions basing on the stand taken in the counter
affidavit. It is contended that taking into account the action of the
Petitioner in harassing and molesting a girl student while Petitioner
was serving as a Reader in Dibakar Pattnaik Institute of Advanced
Studies in Education, Berhampur, Petitioner was placed under
suspension vide order dtd.20.04.2011 under Annexure-1 and the
departmental proceeding was initiated vide Memorandum
dtd.26.12.2011 under Annexure-2.
4.1. Learned State Counsel contended that even though Petitioner was
acquitted in the criminal proceeding, but the same cannot be treated as
an honorable acquittal, as the said order of acquittal was passed basing
on the compromise effected in between the Petitioner and the Victim
// 17 //
(P.W. 1). In support of the same reliance was placed to the finding of
the learned trial court in Para 6 of the Judgment, which reads as
follows:-
"6. It appears from the evidence of P.W. 1 that the matter has
been compromised between her and the accused. P.W. 1 did
not state anything about the alleged incident in the Court."
4.2. It is accordingly contended that since Petitioner was acquitted in
the criminal proceeding because of the compromise effected in
between him and the accused, it cannot be taken that the Petitioner
was honorably acquitted in the criminal proceeding. It is also
contended that since without following the provisions contained under
Rule 15 of the Rules Petitioner was dismissed from his services vide
order dtd.14.07.2014 under Annexure-5, the Tribunal while interfering
with the said order, remitted the matter to Opp. Party No. 1 for fresh
disposal of the proceeding vide order dtd.24.03.2017 under Annxure-6
from the stage of supply of the documents.
4.3. It is contended that in terms of the order passed by the Tribunal
though Petitioner was issued with the 1st show-cause to make his
representation against the finding of the enquiry report vide notice
dtd.10.11.2017 under Annexure-7 and on consideration of the reply to
// 18 //
the 1st show-cause vide notice dtd.16.02.2018 under Annexure-14,
Petitioner was issued with the 2nd show-cause proposing the
punishment to be imposed in terms of Rule 7 of OCS (Pension) Rules,
1992, as Petitioner during pendency of the proceeding retired from his
service on 30.06.2016.
4.4. It is further contended that after due consideration of the
representation made by the Petitioner against the proposed punishment
and after taking the concurrence of OPSC vide letter dtd.13.04.2018,
Petitioner was imposed with the punishment of withholding of 10% of
monthly pension for a period of 10 years vide order dtd.02.05.2018
under Annexure-16.
4.5. However, since Petitioner from the date of his suspension
w.e.f.20.04.2011 remained as such till he attained the age of
superannuation on 30.06.2016, vide office order dtd.09.01.2020 the
said period was treated as such under Annexure-18. It is accordingly
contended that since after remittance of the matter by the Tribunal
Petitioner was given due opportunity of hearing with issuance of the
1st and 2nd show-cause as provided under Rule 15(10)(i)(a) &
15(10)(i)(b) of the Rules, no illegality or irregularity can be found
with the impugned order of punishment.
// 19 //
4.6. It is also contended that since while disposing the proceeding vide
order dtd.02.05.2018 the period of suspension was not duly dealt with,
the same was treated as such vide order dtd.09.01.2020 under
Annexure-18. It is also contended that unless and until the period of
suspension is regularized, Petitioner will not be eligible to get the
benefit of pension and other pensionary benefits.
4.7. A further submission was also made that taking into account the
nature of allegation made by the student, an enquiry was conducted
against the Petitioner, in terms of the provisions contained under
Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace (Prevention, Prohibition
& Redressal) Act, 2013. It is contended that the District Complaint
Committee after due enquiry of the matter submitted a report vide
Annexure-D/1 with the following finding:-
"The allegation petition was received from the Office of the
R.D.C (SD), Berhampur for necessary action. As desired by the
Collector, Ganjam, the Complaint Committee started process of
necessary enquiry into the petition.
The notices were issued to the concerned persons along
with the President, Pramila Devi Mahila Kalyana Sangha to
appear before the committee on 08.04.2011 at 11.30 A.M. Miss
Snigdha Behera, Student of MED (hereinafter will be called as the
victim) and the President, Pramila Devi Mahiia Kalyana Sangha
were present on that date. Sri Surendranath Mohapatro, Lecturer,
// 20 //
D.P. Govt. B.Ed. College, Kanisi (hereafter will be mentioned as
the accused) was absent.
The allegation petition in brief is that, Sri S.N.Mohapatra,
is a Lecturer in D.P. Govt. B.Ed. College, Kanisi. His wife stays at
Cuttack. Many young girls have been exploited by Sri Mohapatra.
He is a sex maniac lecturer who misbehaved indecently Miss
Snigdha Behera on 20.02.2011 after College hours in his room
during the checking of practical notes by gossiping about her
family. Miss Behera expressed about such harassment/molestation
to her friends and all of them alleged to the Principal. The
Principal suggested to remained silent about the incident as it will
degrade the reputation of the college. On 26.02.2011, Sri
Mohapatra again repeated the same behaviours with Miss Behera
in the absence of Principal, for which the FIR was lodged by Miss
Behera in Golanthara P.S.
During the enquiry, the victim was interviewed and the
deposition was taken from her. As per the deposition, she is a
student of M.A. in Education in the distance course. She regularly
attends the classes. The teaching classes were from 25th January to
February 20th. After the class on 20th February Sir (Sri
Mohapatra) called for his signature in the project. At around 1.00
P.M, when she went, Sri Mohapatra asked about the existence of
her friends and family, marital status etc. become Then he clarified
that, "whether regular or IGNOU students but they became pass
only after satisfying 'me every year". "If you will satisfy me once
then you will be passed." He caught her hand forcefully and
pressed her mouth as if to hug her with a demand to satisfy him
once to be passed. While deposing she cried twice and after due
consolation the narration of the bad incident was done. The victim
expressed all these to Dr. Prativa Hota (a lady Lecturer of that
college) and then to the Principal. The Principal consoled her by
// 21 //
telling that, Sri Mohapatra is such type of person may create
problem in future, to remain silent and to help get signature in the
project safely.
On 26th when the victim entered the room of Sri Mohapatra
with two students, Sri Mohapatra got angry with them and asked
the victim to come corrected project papers. When Miss Snigdha
entered into the room she saw that, Si Mohapatra was sitting like
half naked i.e. with open shirt and half opened pant. He thed
molestation, hugged and by beating and pulling the victim even fell
down for which her bangle broken. However, she managed to
escape from there and narrated to Hota Madam by crying and then
to Principal and submitted her written statement about the facts.
when the Principal did not accept the written allegation from the
victim for which she became bound to lodge FIR and then the
Sangha. The victim has deposed that, the atmosphere of that
College is such that, anybody can know about the standard. Even,
the Room of Sri Mohapatra is so clumsy and there is a bench in
front of his table and such type that, he can easily see if someone
enters his room but the entered person cannot see him at the first
glance.
The deposition of Smt. Pramila Tripathy, the President of
the Sangha, was also recorded. As per the deposition, she came to
know about the incident when victim brought the matter to her
Sangha. She has also examined the scratch mark etc. and she is
confirmed about such harassment.
As Sr. Mohapatra was absent, the committee decided to
issue notice him once again and, accordingly notice was issued to
him through the Principal of the college with a direction to appear
before the committee on 13.04.2011. As Sri Mohapatra did not
appear before the committee on the scheduled days the committee
// 22 //
proceeded to the College on 15.04.2011 and conducted field
enquiry and interacted with other official staff of the college for the
investigation purpose to enquire into the matter.
The Principal had proceeded to Bhubaneswar for some
meeting which was cancelled but the Principal was on the
returning way at around 2.40 P.M.
The committee decided to extract the actual light of the
matter by way of chatting with the Incharge Principal and with
other staff of the College. During conversation with Dr. Maheswar
Panda, I/C Principal-Cum-Reader of D.P.I.A.S.E and Dr Prativa
Hota, Lecturer and other staff of the College it was clearly evident
that, the allegation is true and the harassment has been happened.
Maximum staff supported the truth of the bad incident and
indirectly expressed about the harassment of Sri Mohapatra every
year. Even, Sri Mohapatra drinks in the College many times.
During the spot visit of the Committee, it was found that, the room
of Sri Mohapatra (though he has not been officially allotted) is
situated after the staff common room in a corner -like place. The
room was sealed and, it was found that, Sri Mohapatra was on
leave since 27.02.2011, The In-Charge Principal could not clarify
about the position of leave, status of leave of Sr. Mohapatra,
whether allowed or not.
The committee easily felt about the position of Sri
Mohapatra due to his long in that College. Besides, it came to light
that, he has been suspended earlier and transferred to
Bhanjanagar and again posted here. Some staff expressed their
helplessness towards their statements as enquiry after enquiry is
being done but no fruitful action is being taken, which might be
risky for them, some staff played safe role by avoiding the topic. To
the utter surprise, no body protested that, such type of allegation
// 23 //
against the College is false. Rather, it was felt from the expressions
of the staff that. Sri Mohapatra is an influential man and can create
problem in future.
The committee further decided to interview the Principal of
the College for which he was noticed to appear before the
Committee on 18.04.2011. Sri Gopal Ch. Biswal, Principal was
present and the deposition was taken from him.
As per his deposition, the victim told him about the incident
on 22.02.2011, that had happened on 20. Sri Mohapatra
misbehaved her by pulling her hand and tried to outrage. And then
the victim requested the Principal after half an hour not to tell
anything to the accused. On 26.02.2011, he saw Sri Mohapatra and
Snigdha Behera on the verandah while he was to proceed to
Berhampur University with Sri Mohapatra and did not give
importance by believing that he will sign her project. But, the
Principal also stated that, he asked Sri Mohapatra on 26.02.2011
about the allegation which was denied by him. In the evening, after
returning from the University he got notice from the Police Station.
Sri Mohapatra proceeded on leave from 27.02.2011 On 04.03.2011
an explanation was sent through a peon but Sri at that bra we
eviden се Mohapatra was not found at his residence. Even he was
not available on the address at Cuttack. After highlighting of the
issue in Media there is no idea about the whereabouts of Sri
Mohapatra.
The Principal admitted about the bad habits of Sri
Mohapatra taking liquor in the College as he has heard earlier, as
the committee heard from the College. He also admitted that, he
was on contact with Sri Mohapatra only twice after that incident.
On 18.04.2011, Sri Mohapatra intimated about his joining but the
// 24 //
Principal refused. Then, he came to know about the suspension of
Sri Mohapatra on 18.4.2011.
From the spot enquiry, from the depositions of the victim,
the Principal and the discussion with the employees of the College,
the committee came to the conclusion that, the harassment has
been happened. The identical deposition, narration and opinions
were found during the enquiry from all most all concerned: During
the recording of deposition, the Principal hesitated to express
clearly about the instant action against the accused. Even, the
leave applications were not refused and whether treated as
accepted or not could not be cleared. Above all, the accused
absconded in the plea of health ground from the very next day of
the incident got highlight proves the harassment. No sincere,
sympathetic attitude has been noticed towards such harassment
which is a matter of shame and great concern.
During the recording of deposition from the victim, the
emotional, moral shock see faced by her was noticed from her burst
into tears and she challenged to go to the room of the accused to
get the clear picture of opportunity of harassment i.e. there is no
space that a girl student can stand far from the accused, in that
room. The fact was also confirmed during the discussion with
others in the College premise.
Most importantly everybody indirectly admitted about the
regular harassment of the students by the accused every year. The
matter is a shameless fact in such a pious institution.
Due to the influence of the accused, no body dare to ask
about the allegation rather tried to suppress the matter. Rather,
everybody is well acquainted about the character of the accused.
Even on 26.02.2011 the victim complained by crying which many
// 25 //
have witnessed and admitted. The matter of great regret is that, the
victim deposed that, the written allegation was entertained. On the
contrary, the head of the institution deposed, the victim did not
submit any written complaint. The question arises, why the victim
was not advised to submit the written allegation on the spot and
why immediate action was not taken by the authority without
waiting for the media highlight. The matter was neither taken
sympathetically since 22.02.2011 nor considered even on
26.02.2011 humanely.
To the utter surprise, nobody is denying the incident
keeping in view of such type of nature, attitude and character of the
accused. Though, he has been suspended in the meantime, seems a
threat to the career of girl students in that College in future. The
harassment is in compensation towards the moral shock faced by
the victim."
4.8. It is contended that since the District Level Complaint Committee
found the Petitioner to have committed the offence and the Petitioner
was acquitted in the criminal proceeding because of the compromise
effected in between him and the Victim, decisions rendered by the
Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of G.M. Tank & Ram Lal as cited
(supra) so relied on by the learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner
are not applicable to the facts of the present case.
4.9. It is also contended that against such finding of the District Level
Complaint Committee, Petitioner never preferred any appeal as
provided under the provisions of the 2013 Act. Making all these
// 26 //
submissions learned Addl. Govt. Advocate contended that the
impugned order has been rightly passed and it requires no
interference.
5. Having heard learned counsel appearing for the Parties and
considering the submissions made and after going through the
material available on record, this Court finds that the Petitioner while
continuing as a Lecturer in Education in DPIASE, Berhampur, he was
placed under suspension vide order dtd.20.04.2011 of Opp. Party No.
1 under Annexure-1. Thereafter, Petitioner was proceeded with in the
departmental proceeding vide Memorandum dtd.26.12.2011 under
Annexure-2 so initiated under Rule 15 of the Rules.
5.1. For the alleged action of the Petitioner, a criminal proceeding was
also initiated against him, in which he was charged for the offence
under Sec. 294/506 of I.P.C. and Sec. 3(1)(xi) and 3(1)(xii) of the SC
& ST (PA) Act, 1989. Even though the said proceeding ended in
acquittal, but as found from the judgment so available under
Annexure-3, Petitioner got the benefit of acquittal, because of the
compromise effected in between him and the Victim (P.W. 1).
// 27 //
5.2. Therefore, it is the view of this Court that acquittal of the
Petitioner cannot be taken as an honorable acquittal as contended by
the learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner and Petitioner
accordingly is not eligible and entitled to get the benefit of the order
passed by the Apex Court in the case of G.M. Tank and Ram Lal as
cited (supra). It is also found from the record that Petitioner when
initially was dismissed from his services vide order dtd.14.07.2014
under Annexure-5, challenging the same Petitioner moved the
Tribunal in O.A. No. 3087 of 2014. The Tribunal vide order
dtd.24.03.2017 under Annexure-6, while quashing order
dtd.14.07.2014 remitted the matter to Opp. Party No. 1 to start the
proceeding from the stage of supply of the documents and by
affording opportunity of hearing to the Petitioner.
5.3. As found from the record, in terms of the said order the
proceeding never commenced from the stage of supply of documents
and instead Petitioner was issued with the 1st show-cause as provided
under Rule 15(10(i)(a) of the Rules vide notice dtd.10.11.2017 under
Annexure-7. Since in terms of the order passed by the Tribunal the
proceeding never commenced from the stage of supply of documents,
// 28 //
it is the view of this Court that the proceeding was not conducted in
terms of the order passed by the Tribunal under Annexure-5.
5.4. Not only that, this Court taking into account the report available
under Annexure-D/1 so made by the District Level Complaint
Committee, is of the view that the proceeding requires a fresh disposal
by Opp. Party No. 1 from the stage of supply of the documents so
directed by the Tribunal.
5.5. Since after remand of the matter, the proceeding has not been
conducted in terms of the order passed by the Tribunal, this Court is
inclined to quash order dtd.02.05.2018 so passed by Opp. Party No. 1
under Annexure-16 and order dtd.09.01.2020 so passed by Opp. Party
No. 1 under Annexure-18. While quashing both the orders, this Court
remits the matter to Opp. Party No. 1 to conclude the same in terms of
the order passed by the Tribunal under Annexure-5 and commence the
proceeding from the stage of supply of the documents.
5.6. Taking into account the fact that the Petitioner retired since
30.06.2016, this Court directs Opp. Party No. 1 to conclude the
proceeding as expeditiously as possible preferably by the end of this
year. This Court directs Opp. Party No. 1 to supply the documents to
// 29 //
the Petitioner within a period of four (4) weeks from the date of
receipt of this order. On such supply of the documents Petitioner will
be allowed four (4) weeks time to file his written statement of
defence. Opp. Party No. 1 is directed to take up the proceeding after
such filing of the written statement of defence and conclude the
proceeding by the end of this year as directed. Petitioner is however
directed to co-operate with the enquiry and participate in the
proceeding at each stage without praying for any time, save and
except under compelling circumstances.
5.7. This Court further directs Opp. Party No. 1 to decide the
proceeding in accordance with law and will also look into the fact that
as to whether against the finding of the District Level Complaint
Committee under Annexure-D/1, Petitioner has taken any further step
in the matter as provided under the 2013 Act.
6. The writ petition accordingly stands disposed of with the aforesaid
observation and direction.
(BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY)
Judge
Orissa High Court, Cuttack
Dated
Signed by: SNEHANJALI the 6th May, 2025/Sneha
PARIDA
Reason: Authentication
Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack
Date: 09-May-2025 18:29:29
