Orissa High Court
Sunil Kumar Gaggar vs General Manager And Disciplinary on 11 November, 2025
Author: Murahari Sri Raman
Bench: Murahari Sri Raman
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
WA No.1433 of 2025
Sunil Kumar Gaggar .... Appellant
Dr. Jitendra Kumar Lenka, Advocate
-versus-
General Manager and Disciplinary .... Respondents
Authority, National Insurance
Company Ltd. and others
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MURAHARI SRI RAMAN
ORDER
Order No. 11.11.2025
01. 1. This intra-Court appeal preferred under Clause-10 of the Letters
Patent constituting the High Court of Judicature at Patna is directed
against judgment dated 31st July, 2025 passed by the learned Single
Judge in W.P.(C) No.10520 of 2022.
2. The appellant herein (petitioner no.1 in the writ petition)
challenged the order dated 20th April, 2022 of the Disciplinary
Authority rejecting his representation for change of the Enquiry
Officer.
2.1. Reply dated 12th October, 2020 and 16th October, 2020 was
furnished to the authority concerned in connection with
memorandum dated 29th September, 2020 contemplating disciplinary
proceeding. The appellant raised objection before the Enquiry
Officer, which was not paid any heed to and perceiving unfair
treatment in course of enquiry, a request was made before the
Disciplinary Authority to substitute the Enquiry Officer. The
Disciplinary Authority vide order dated 20th April, 2022 (Annexure-
16 of the writ petition) rejected the request, which was subject matter
of challenge in the writ petition.
2.2. Learned Single Judge taking note of factual aspect did not show
indulgence in order dated 20th April, 2022, but directed the Enquiry
Officer to proceed with the enquiry from the stage where it was on
13th April, 2022 and conclude the enquiry in accordance with law.
2.3. Being aggrieved by such direction of the learned Single Judge
vide judgment dated 31st July, 2025 passed in WP(C) No.10520 of
2022, the appellant preferred the present writ appeal.
3. It is vehemently contended by the learned counsel appearing for
the appellant that since the Disciplinary Authority had not considered
the grievance of the appellant to replace the Enquiry Officer and
rejected the representation of the appellant without assigning any
reason, the learned Single Judge should have considered the same
and directed the Disciplinary Authority to replace the Enquiry
Officer.
3.1. It is further submitted that the appellant reasonably believes that
the direction of the learned Single Judge to appear before the same
Enquiry Officer would seriously prejudice him and he also feels that
he shall not get fair treatment in course of disciplinary proceeding.
3.2. It is contended that the direction of the learned Single Judge is
erroneous and liable to be set aside inasmuch as the grievance of the
appellant with respect to non-supply of defence documents and non-
examination of witnesses whose statements the Enquiry Officer
sought to rely on should have been considered.
4. Perused the record and having gone through the judgment dated
31st July, 2025 passed in WP(C) No.10520 of 2022, it is
demonstrably manifest that the appellant participated in the enquiry
on 9th September, 2021 and sought for adjournment on subsequent
date, i.e., 16th September, 2021. On 14th March, 2022 as the appellant
did not appear in the proceeding before the Enquiry Officer, the
proceeding was directed to be continued ex parte. However, on the
request of the appellant, said ex parte order was recalled by order
dated 23rd March, 2022. Thereafter, instead of participating in the
proceeding, the appellant sought for further adjournment on 13 th
April, 2022. Having rejected, the Enquiry Officer decided to
conclude the enquiry vide order dated 13th April, 2022.
5. As is revealed from the record that after the order dated 23 rd
March, 2022 as referred to above, the appellant participated in the
enquiry and cross-examined the witnesses on 11th April, 2022 and
12th April, 2022. Since the appellant did not raise any objection and
participated in the enquiry, the Disciplinary Authority was justified
in rejecting his representation to substitute the Enquiry Officer.
6. The learned Single Judge at paragraphs-5 of the judgment dated
31st July, 2025 clearly adumbrated the facts narrating date-wise
events of proceeding and came to hold that the appellant did not raise
objection with respect to appointment of Enquiry Officer at the
earliest opportune time. It is pertinent to refer to paragraphs-5.4 and
5.5 of the said judgment which is extracted hereinbelow:
"5.4. Considering the materials available on record, it
is found that the petitioners after appointment of the
Inquiry Officer vide order dated 09.11.2020 under
Annexure-3 duly participated before him without raising
any objection on different dates. Not only that, when
Petitioners were set ex parte, the same was also recalled
by the Inquiry Officer vide order dated 23.03.2022
under Annexure-8. After such recalling of the order,
Petitioners also participated in the inquiry without any
objection on 11.04.2022 and 12.04.2022. On
13.04.2022, when Petitioners prayed for an
adjournment, the same was rejected by the Inquiry
Officer and the Inquiry Officer held the inquiry
concluded vide order dated 13.04.2022 under Annexure-
10.
5.5. In view of the aforesaid analysis, this Court is of
the view that allegation of biasness made against the
Opp. Party No.3 is not at all proved and made out.
Therefore, this Court find no illegality or irregularity
with impugned rejection of the petitioner's prayer to
change the Inquiry Officer, passed by Opp. Party No.1
vide order dated 20.04.2022 under Annexure-16.
However, since prayer of the Petitioners to take an
adjournment on 13.04.2022 was rejected and the
Inquiry Officer held the inquiry to be concluded, it is the
view of this Court that the said order could not have
been passed, taking into account the charges framed
against the Petitioners."
7. Having perused the aforesaid judgment, this Court finds no merit
in the contention of the learned counsel appearing for the appellant to
show indulgence in the said judgment. This Court has the occasion to
peruse the prayer of the writ petition, which is as follows:
"The petitioners, therefore, most humbly pray that your
Lordship would be graciously pleased to issue a rule
NISI calling upon the Opp. Parties to show cause as to
why the order dated 20.04.2022 at Annexure-16 refusing
to change the Enquiry Officer should not be quashed
and as to why Opp. Party No.1 should not be directed to
change the Enquiry Officer and appoint an impartial
Officer to conduct the enquiry by setting aside/quashing
the orders dt.16.9.2021 and 23.3.2022 and closing the
enquiry ex-parte on 13.04.2022 at Annexure-5, 8 and 10
respectively.
And if the Opp. Parties fail to show cause or sufficient
cause, the Rule may be made absolute.
And issue any other order or orders as this Hon'ble
Court deem fit and proper;
And for which act of kindness, the petitioners as in duty
bound shall ever pray."
7.1. As it appears the appellant had not made any prayer before the
authority concerned nor did he seek before the learned Single Judge
for a direction to supply documents, as contended in this writ appeal.
While arguing before this Court the learned counsel for the appellant
urged that the learned Single Judge should have considered his
prayer for supply of relevant documents.
7.2. At paragraphs-27 & 28 of the writ appeal, the appellant has
stated thus:
"27. That, in view of the facts and law mentioned above,
action on the part of the respondent no.1 in not
supplying the relevant documents and in not changing
the I.O. (respondent no.3) who is biased and not
impartial is illegal, arbitrary and malafide and contrary
to law and as such the impugned order is liable to be
quashed.
28. That, the Hon'ble Single Judge of this Hon'ble
Court as per judgment dated 31/07/2025 vide Annexure-
15 without considering the fact of non-supply of defence
documents and non-examination of defence witnesses
where the enquiry officer only relied on the statements
and documents of the management has passed the
impugned order by wrongly holding that the I.O. was
not biased. The Hon'ble Single Judge has also quashed
the order dated 13/04/2022, where the appellant could
not able to attend due to his ill health and schedule
Covid Vaccination of daughter of the defence assistant.
And while quashing the order dated 13/04/2022
permitted the appellant to appear before the enquiry
officer (respondent no.3) on 22/08/2025. On their
appearance before the I.O. on 22/08/2025, the
respondent No.3 shall proceed with the enquiry from the
stage where is was on 13/04/2022 by fixing a suitable
date with due intimation to the petitioner and conclude
the enquiry in accordance with law. After the judgment
dated 31.07.2025, the E.O. asked the petitioner to attend
the equiry on 22.08.2025 as per letter
No.1610000/CS/CDA/2025, dated 04.08.2025."
7.3. As it appears, the appellant has sought to introduce new facts in
order to protract the proceeding further. From the prayer(s) as made
in the writ petition, there is no indication with regard to non-supply
document(s). Therefore, in the writ appeal, pleadings nor arguments
which were not before the learned Single Judge cannot be
entertained.
8. In view of the aforesaid, the writ appeal, sans merit, is dismissed.
As a result of disposal of the writ appeal, interlocutory application(s),
pending, if any, shall stand dismissed but no order as to costs.
(Harish Tandon)
Chief Justice
(M.S. Raman)
Judge
MRS/Laxmikant
Signed by: LAXMIKANT MOHAPATRA
Designation: Senior Stenographer
Reason: Authentication
Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack
Date: 12-Nov-2025 18:45:09
