Orissa High Court
Kalyan Ranjan Sahoo vs Union Of India And Others .... Opp. ... on 7 November, 2025
Author: S.K. Sahoo
Bench: S.K. Sahoo
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
W.P.(C) No.28438 of 2025
Kalyan Ranjan Sahoo ... Petitioners
Mr.P.K. Bhuyan, Advocate
-versus-
Union of India and others .... Opp. Parties
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.K. SAHOO
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. S. MISHRA
ORDER
Order No. 07.11.2025
03. This matter is taken up through Hybrid arrangement
(video conferencing/physical mode).
This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner Kalyan
Ranjan Sahoo challenging the order dated 10.09.2025 passed by
the learned Central Administrative Tribunal, Cuttack Bench,
Cuttack (in short, 'Tribunal') in O.A. No.260 of 2025.
It appears that earlier the petitioner approached the
learned Tribunal in O.A. No.437 of 2012 challenging the order of
punishment dated 04.02.2004 removing him from service
passed by the Production Engineer and Disciplinary Authority.
The ground of challenge was mainly, gross violation of Rules,
violation of principles of natural justice and that the punishment
being highly disproportionate to the gravity of charge. The
charge against the petitioner was that he remained
unauthorizedly absent from duties for two and half years i.e.
from 12.12.2000 to 12.05.2003. The learned Tribunal dismissed
the Original Application vide its order dated 11.08.2014 on the
ground of delay. When the petitioner assailed the order passed
by the learned Tribunal dated 11.08.2014 in O.A. No. 437 of
2012 before this Court in W.P.(C) No. 489 of 2015, the same
was disposed of vide judgment and order dated 26.04.2021
inter alia observing as under:
"25. We are of the opinion that since in this case
order of punishment has been passed in the year
2004 and in the meantime, almost two decades have
already passed, the interest of justice will not be
subserved, if the matter is remanded back to the
Disciplinary Authority. We are also of the opinion that
the Applicant/ Petitioner who was aged about 49
years at the time of filing of the Original Application
before the Tribunal is near the age of superannuation
and there is hardly one or two years left of his active
service. In such facts situation, setting aside the
order of punishment and remanding the matter back
to the Disciplinary Authority will render all his efforts
fruitless.
26. Hence, the writ petition is allowed by issuing a
writ of certiorari. The impugned order dated 11th
August, 2014 passed by the Tribunal in O.A. No.437
of 2012 is hereby quashed. The order of finding of
guilt, second show cause and final order of dismissal
are hereby quashed. We further direct that (he
Applicant/ Petitioner should be re-instated in his post
as Junior Clerk within a period of forty-five days from
today with the salary which the other Junior Clerks
are receiving at present in the same cadre. We also
direct that the period from 12.05.2003 till his joining
shall be considered for the purpose of his service
benefits. But, the Applicant/Petitioner is not
entitled to receive any financial benefit for that
period.
27. With such observations, this writ petition is
disposed of."
It appears that the petitioner again approached the
learned Tribunal in O.A. No. 260 of 2025 seeking the following
reliefs:
"(i) To direct the respondents to release the salary
and other financial benefits from the date of
dismissal to the date of reinstatement (i.e. 4.2.2004
to 24.6.2021);
(ii) And pass any other order(s) /direction(s) as
deemed fit and proper in the interest of justice."
After hearing the learned counsel for both the parties,
the learned Tribunal taking into account the order dated
26.04.2021 passed by this Court in W.P.(C) No.489 of 2015, has
been pleased to observe as follows:
submitted that after taking resort to initiate a
Disciplinary Proceeding, Memorandum of charge
under Rule 9 of the Railway Servants (Discipline and
Appeal) Rules, 1968 (hereinafter referred to as "the
Rules" for brevity), was framed and sent to the
applicant in his address available in the service
record but the same was returned undelivered. As
such, as per the Rules, in presence of witnesses the
same was pasted in the notice board.
Thereafter, the Inquiring Officer was appointed
to enquire into the matter and letter was sent to the
applicant in that regard but the same was returned
undelivered with postal remark that "addressee
always absent". As notices were returned unserved
repeatedly, the Inquiring Officer proceeded with the
enquiry and submitted its report holding the charge
as proved. The same was sent to the applicant but
again it was returned unserved.
In view of the above, as there was no other
option for the Disciplinary Authority, he considered
the report and other materials available on record
and vide order dated 04.02.2004 imposed the
punishment of removal from service with immediate
effect.
denied to have received any appeal dated
18.03.2004, but have stated that one mercy appeal
dated 01.12.2007 was submitted by the
Applicant/Petitioner which was duly considered, but
the same was rejected and communicated to the
Applicant/Petitioner by registered post with AD vide
letter dated 21.03.2008.
claimed that there was delay and laches on the part
of the Applicant/ Petitioner. Hence, they prayed to
dismiss the Original Application.
5. The Applicant/ Petitioner filed a rejoinder denying
the allegations made by the Respondents/Opposite
Party Nos.1 to 3. He specifically stated that except
bald assertions, no material has been placed in
support of the averments that notices were returned
unserved He further stated that the order imposing
punishment of removal from service has been passed
behind his back which is not sustainable in the eye of
law."
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that since this
Court has been pleased to set aside the order of punishment
imposed on the petitioner by the disciplinary authority and also
directed that the petitioner should be reinstated in the post of
Junior Clerk, he should not have been deprived of the financial
benefits for the period from 04.02.2004 till 24.06.2021.
It is an admitted fact that the judgment of this Court
dated 26.04.2021 passed in W.P.(C) No.489 of 2015 has
attained finality in absence of any challenge to the same by the
petitioner. Therefore, the relief sought for by the petitioner in
the second round seeking the salary for the period from
04.02.2004 to 24.06.2021 is forbidden in view of the specific
observation of the Division Bench of this Court that the
petitioner is not entitled to receive any financial benefit for the
said period. In view thereof, the learned Tribunal is correct in
declining the prayer made by the petitioner in the second round
of litigation. Therefore, we are not inclined to interfere with the
impugned order passed by the learned Tribunal.
Accordingly, the writ petition being devoid of merit,
stands dismissed.
( S.K. Sahoo)
Judge
(S.S. Mishra)
Judge
PKSahoo
Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA
