Orissa High Court
Ramesh Kumar Sahani vs State Of Odisha & Others .... Opposite ... on 13 October, 2025
Author: R.K. Pattanaik
Bench: R.K. Pattanaik
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
AFR W.P.(C) No.29215 of 2021
Ramesh Kumar Sahani .... Petitioner
Mr. Asok Mohanty, Senior Advocate
-Versus-
State of Odisha & others .... Opposite Parties
Ms. Biswabara Dash. ASC
CORAM:
JUSTICE R.K. PATTANAIK
DATE OF HEARING:17.07.2025
DATE OF JUDGMENT:13.10.2025
1.
Instant writ petition is filed by the petitioner challenging
the impugned order at Annnexure-1 dated 21st December,
2020 of opposite party No.2 communicated to him vide D.O.
No.4 dated 1st January, 2021 followed by Annexure-12,
whereby, he has been inflicted with punishment of one black
mark on the grounds inter alia that the action initiated with
the decisions followed is unjustified, arbitrary and hence,
liable to be interfered with in the interest of justice.
2. As pleaded on record, the petitioner appeared the
competitive examination for the post of SI of Police in the
year 2008 and received appointment in 2010 and on
completion of training by him, joined in service at Jenapur
PS in the district of Jajpur under opposite party No.3 and was
thereafter, transferred and attached to the DIB, Jajpur in
2019 and while continuing as such, was issued with a show
cause on 10th September, 2019 as per Annexure-2 seeking
explanation as to why he did not attend the crime meeting
held on 7th September, 2019, in response to which,
explanation was submitted to opposite party No.3. It is
further pleaded that upon receiving the explanation i.e.
Annexure-2, opposite party No.3 was not satisfied and as a
result, initiated the disciplinary proceeding, in which, he was
supplied the memorandum of charge and evidence alleging
gross misconduct, dereliction in duty and disobedience of
order and was directed to submit a reply by 18th October,
2019. According to the petitioner, in response to the memo of
charge and evidence as at Annexures-3 and 4 and followed
by the explanation i.e. Annexure-5, opposite party No.3 was
not satisfied and proceeded against him and entrusted the
enquiry to one Mr.J.R. Satpathy OPS-I with Sri C. Behera, SI
of Police appointed as the Marshalling Officer and therein,
the written defence was filed and in course of such enquiry,
witnesses stood examined and documents were received as
evidence and at last, the report was submitted on 17th
January, 2020 finding him guilty for the charges levelled as
per Annexure-7, whereafter, opposite party No.3 issued 1st
show cause notice i.e. Annexure-8 and it was responded by a
reply but ultimately, with the 2nd show cause notice issued
received vide Memo No.358 dated 20th February, 2020, the
punishment was proposed and though such show cause reply
was submitted as per Annexure-11 but in a mechanical
manner, the impugned order i.e. Annexure-20 was passed, to
which, an appeal was carried before opposite party No.2 as
per Annexure-13 series and since there was delay in disposal
of the same, he filed W.P.(C) No.18471 of 2020 and pursuant
to the order dated 3rd September, 2020 i.e. Annexure-14
therein, hearing in the appeal was concluded and it was
followed by the impugned order i.e. Annexure-1 confirming
the order of opposite party No.3 vide Annexure-12.
3. The grounds of challenge are that (i) the impugned
decision of opposite party No.2 as per Annexure-1 is not
based on materials on record and there is non-application of
judicial mind, hence, the same is liable to be quashed; (ii) the
punishment awarded on the allegation of misconduct etc. is a
pre-conceived one because the petitioner was neither directed
to appear nor received any prior intimation about the crime
meeting held on 7th September, 2019 and the said fact was
not taken into consideration by opposite party No.2; (iii) the
petitioner submitted the reply to the 1st show cause and
hence, the claim of the opposite parties is incorrect, inasmuch
as, the 2nd show cause notice is consequential to the first one
and therefore, the disciplinary authority did receive the reply;
(iv) the opposite parties in a vindictive manner and arbitrarily
alleged the petitioner to have disobeyed the order and
initiated the departmental proceeding and finally, imposed
the punishment and dismissed the appeal, all the more when,
he was neither directed nor intimated to attend the meeting
dated 7th September, 2019 by any of his senior officials; (v)
the punishment is excessive and hence, the same in improper
and it has been imposed with a dishonest intention to deprive
the petitioner his usual promotion; and (vi) the petitioner was
compelled to comply several show cause notices in order to
harass him and the action by the authority concerned in such
manner is contrary to the principles of natural justice and as
such, the impugned orders as at Annexures-1 and 12 deserve
to be set aside.
4. The counter affidavit is filed by the State through
opposite party No.3, according to which, the petitioner is
guilty of misconduct, dereliction in duty and disobedience for
unauthorized absence on 7th September, 2019 when the crime
meeting was held and it was without the knowledge of the
Deputy Superintendent of Police, DIB and the
Superintendent of Police, Jajpur and therefore, on account of
such indiscipline, he has been penalized, inasmuch as, for
such misconduct many times before warning was issued to
him, hence, at last, the disciplinary proceeding was initiated,
when despite the warnings, his behaviour and conduct did not
improve. It is further pleaded that the enquiry was conducted,
evidence was received and the written defence was duly
taken judicial notice of and on conclusion of such enquiry,
the report was received with the findings that the petitioner is
guilty of misconduct and it was followed by the penalty
confirmed in appeal by opposite party No.2. In reply to the
claim of the petitioner that he was not aware of the crime
meeting or for that matter, was not intimated by the higher
office, it is pleaded in the counter that there was a verbal
order of the competent authority to all the staff of the DPO to
attend the same as well as other meetings and therefore, all
the senior officials except him attended that meeting held on
7th September, 2019, hence, therefore, the show cause notice
was issued to explain as to why, he did not turn up but as the
reply was not satisfactory, the same was not accepted and
explanation as per Annexure-A/3 was called for. By stating
such other facts related to the enquiry and the conduct of the
petitioner, it is finally pleaded that the impugned order as per
Annexure-1 is perfectly justified with the claim that the
petitioner did not submit any reply to the 1st show cause and
never clarified in appeal as to why the same was not
complied with, hence, the plea in that regard is totally
unacceptable. It is pleaded that the letters at Annexure-B/3
series have been issued to the petitioner to submit
explanation on different occasions. It is further pleaded that
despite such misconduct previously demanding explanations
from the petitioner followed by warnings for each of such
repeated acts of disobedience and as there was no change in
his conduct, the departmental proceeding was finally initiated
and it has led to the imposition of punishment of one black
mark and thus, any such plea advanced seeking exoneration
shall have to be rejected.
5. Heard Mr. Mohanty, learned Senior Advocate for the
petitioner and Ms. Dash, learned ASC for the State.
6. Mr. Mohanty, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the
petitioner submits that due procedure has not been followed
before imposing penalty on the petitioner. The further
submission is that imposition of black mark is a major
punishment in view of Rule 8(4) of the Odisha Police Rules
and therefore, the departmental proceeding was to be
conducted in accordance with Appendix-49 of the Odisha
Police Manual. The contention is that the proceeding has not
been held in accordance with the procedure prescribed
therein, which is evident from the facts pleaded on record.
According to Mr. Mohanty, learned Senior Advocate,
Appendix-49 stipulates that while drawing up a proceeding,
the report/compliance against an officer and his explanation,
if any, should be examined by a responsible officer in order
to decide, whether, charges are to be framed. But, in the case
at hand, no such decision was taken and straightaway, the
charges have been framed as per Annexure-3. The further
contention is that Clause 5 of the said Appendix clearly lays
down that the charges shall be communicated to the persons
charged together with a statement of allegation on each of
such charges levelled but in the case of the petitioner, the
charge has not been accompanied with any memorandum of
allegation. Though, the explanation was sought for from the
petitioner in respect of the charges and for his absence at the
time of crime meeting held on 7th September, 2019, Mr.
Mohanty, learned Senior Advocate would submit that the
charge has further included the earlier allegations of
indiscipline behaviour and dereliction of duty which is not
the subject matter of Annexure-A/3 of the counter affidavit.
It is contended that for the alleged indiscipline or
disobedience or dereliction in duty, the petitioner was
censured and issued with warning as made to reveal from
Annexure-B/3 series and therefore, the charge as per
Annexure-3 is not sustainable as he has ready been imposed
penalty on similar allegations. In so far as the misconduct
alleged against the petitioner is concerned, Mr. Mohanty,
learned Senior Advocate submits that the evidence of a
witness, namely, Mr. P.K. Mishra recorded during enquiry
reveals that all the Section Heads and the Branch Sections
dealing with the matters were communicated about the crime
meeting verbally with instructions to the staff to remain
present during such period and therefore, it shows that all the
officials and staff, whose participation was necessary, were
present in that meeting and not the petitioner, who had not
been informed. The evidence of P.W.2, as is contended,
corroborates the fact that the petitioner was not intimated but
the Superintendent of Police, Jajpur had enquired about his
absence and therefore, such evidence of a Section Head is
relevant and as a whole, the evidence suggests that there was
no such intimation to the petitioner for him to remain present
in the crime meeting, rather, the defence evidence goes to
show that he was present in the office at the relevant point of
time and was engaged in some work entrusted by the Deputy
Superintendent of Police, DIB and therefore, the findings of
the Enquiry Officer by not taking into consideration the same
is perverse and based on no evidence.
7. On the other hand, Ms. Dash, learned ASC for the State
would submit that due procedure has been followed and
enquiry was held for the misconduct on account of the
petitioner having not attended the crime meeting and due to
such dereliction in duty and disobedience of the direction of
the superior authority, opposite party No.3 imposed the
penalty and rightly confirmed in appeal by opposite party
No.2, hence, therefore, the impugned order as per
Annexures-1 and 12 are not to be disturbed. It is contended
that Rule 828 of the Odisha Police Rules stipulates that no
order of dismissal removal of reduction shall be passed
against any police officer unless he has been notified in
writing, upon which, action is proposed with adequate
opportunity of defending himself provided, inasmuch as, the
same provides a detail procedure for departmental action and
in accordance therewith, Appendix-49 has been prescribed
and in view of the above statutory provision, an explanation
for the absence of the petitioner in the crime meeting was
called for by the Superintendent of Police, Jajpur as per
Annexure-A/3 series of the counter and thereafter, the
subsequent events followed with the enquiry held,
examination of witnesses from both the sides, followed by
the penalty proposed with the first and second show cause
notices having been issued to him. In support of such
contention, Ms. Dash, learned ASC refers to the defence
evidence led through D.W.1, namely, B.P. Rout, Inspector of
Police, Crime Section, DPO, Jajpur. The further submission
is that Rule 843 read with Appendix-49 was followed before
imposing punishment of one black mark against the
petitioner and hence, there have been no statutory lapses at
any point of time till the very end. Advancing such an
argument, Ms. Dash, learned ASC cited the following
decisions, such as, Union of India and others Vrs. P.
Gunasekaran (2015) 2 SCC 610; Union of India and
others Vrs. Subrata Nath, 2022 Live Law (SC) 998; Union
of India and others Vrs. Ex. Constable Ram Karan,
(2022) 1 SCC 373; State of Orissa and others Vrs.
Bidyabhushan Mohapatra AIR 1963 SC 779; Union of
India Vrs. Sardar Bahadur (1972) 4 SCC 618; Indian Oil
Corporation and others Vrs. Ajit Kumar Singh and
another 2023 Live Law SC 478 drawing to the reference of
the judgment in Deputy General Manager (Appellate
Authority) and others Vrs. Ajai Kumar Srivastava (2021)
2 SCC 612 with the contention that as per the settled legal
position enunciated the above case laws, the power of
judicial review by the Constitutional Courts is to be exercised
only for evaluation of decision making process and not the
merits of the decision itself, the purpose being to ensure
fairness in treatment and not of conclusion and therefore, a
Court or a Tribunal should only interfere with the
proceedings held against the delinquent, if it is, in any
manner, found to be inconsistent with the rule of natural
justice or in violation of the statutory rules prescribing the
mode of enquiry or where the conclusion or findings reached
at by the Disciplinary Authority is based on no evidence.
8. The decision of the disciplinary authority is challenged by
the petitioner on the ground that there is non-consideration of
the relevant evidence on record and that apart, the proceeding
has not been drawn up in accordance with the procedure
prescribed in Apendix-49, as according to which, in terms of
clause 5 thereof, the charges shall be communicated to the
delinquent together with the statement of the allegations on
each charge and before that, any such report or complaint
received against the delinquent concerned shall have to be
examined by a responsible officer. To counter the same, the
State's reply is that there has been due compliance of the
procedure and it cannot now be faulted with by referring to
Apendix-49. It is contended that the petitioner has been
proceeded with in accordance with Rule 828 of the Orissa
Police Rules providing him adequate opportunity to defend
himself and the procedure for such a departmental action in
terms of Apendix-49 has been complied with.
9. Mr. Mohanty, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the
petitioner would highlight upon Apendix-49 to contend that
there has been no such compliance as claimed by the State.
The charge against the petitioner is one of the unauthorized
absence during a crime meeting held on 7th September, 2019
and for repeated indisciplined behavior, disobedience of
order and dereliction in duty as made to reveal from
Annexure-3. It is also made to understand that a memo of
evidence was furnished along with the charge head as per
Annexure-4 with a direction to the petitioner to file show
cause and in response to the same, having received
Annexure-5, the enquiry was commenced and the report of
such enquiry was received on 7th January, 2020 as per
Annexure-7. In fact, the written statement of defence was
submitted by the petitioner as per Annexure-6. Finally, first
show cause notice was issued to the petitioner along with a
copy of the enquiry report by the Disciplinary Authority as
per Annexure-8. The show cause reply was received beyond
time on 15th February, 2020, however, the same having not
been accepted, the second show cause notice was issued to
the petitioner on 19th February, 2020 asking him to reply as to
why the proposed punishment shall not be imposed. In
response to the show cause notice at Annexure-16, the
petitioner submitted a reply as per Annexure-11 and finally
Disciplinary Authority, who having not been satisfied with
the response, imposed punishment vide Annexure-12 and it
has been upheld in appeal by opposite party No.2.
10. The Court is to examine the case laws cited at the Bar. In
Union of India and others Vrs. P. Gunasekaran (2015) 2
SCC 610, the Apex Court reiterated the legal position vis-à-
vis the powers of the Writ Court in dealing with departmental
actions and decision and concluded that the High Court is not
to act like an Appellate Authority of the Disciplinary
Authority reappreciating the evidence received by the
Enquiry Officer and therein, referred to an earlier case law in
State of A.P. and others Vrs. S. Sree Rama Rao AIR 1963
SC 1723, wherein, it has been observed that the Court not
being a Court of appeal over the decision of the authorities
holding the departmental enquiry against the public servant, it
is only to determine whether the enquiry held by the authority
competent in that behalf according to the procedure
prescribed and to ascertain whether the rules of natural justice
have been followed and where there is some evidence which
the authority entrusted with the duty to hold the enquiry has
accepted and such evidence may reasonably support the
conclusion that the delinquent is guilty of the charge, the
same is not to be interfered with exercising power of judicial
review to arrive at an independent finding at the end.
11. Similarly, in Union of India and others Vrs. Subrata
Nath 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 998 taking into account an earlier
decision in Union of India and others Vrs. Ex. Constable
Ram Karan (2022) 1 SCC 373 and a Constitution Bench
decision in State of Orissa and others Vrs. Bidyabhushan
Mohapatra AIR 1963 SC 779 besides Union of India Vrs.
Sardar Bahadur (1972) 4 SCC 618, it has been concluded
that the High Court was having no good reasons to enter into
the domain of the factual aspects relating to the evidence
recorded before the Inquiry Officer, as any such attempt
reappreciating evidence is impermissible in exercise of
powers vested with the High Court under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India.
12. In Indian Oil Corporation & others Vrs. Ajit Kumar
Singh and another 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 478 drawing
reference to a judgment in Deputy General Manager and
others Vrs. Ajai Kumar Srivastava (2021) 2 SCC 612, it
has been once again held and observed that the power of
judicial review of the Constitutional Courts is only for
evaluation of the decision making process and not the merits
of the decision to be considered and it is to only ensure that
fairness in treatment to the delinquent has been observed and
only when the proceedings are held in violation of the
statutory rules not consistent with the rules of natural justice,
the power of judicial review is to be exercised and not
otherwise.
13. The Court is aware of the limitation while considering the
legality of the decisions of the authorities below. The
petitioner is a member of the disciplined police force and he
has been alleged of disobedience and ultimately penalized by
one black mark which is admittedly a major punishment as
per the Orissa Police Manual. In fact, Rule 828 of the Orissa
Police Rules deals with initiation of a disciplinary proceeding
and in case of a major penalty to be imposed on a police
officer, the grounds for the action are to be notified providing
him an opportunity to defend. A procedure is prescribed
under Apendix-49 of the said Rules. It is claimed by the
petitioner that such procedure has not been followed.
According to the Court, a memo of evidence was furnished to
the petitioner with the enquiry commenced. Before such
commencement of the enquiry, the petitioner did not raise
any objection about the procedure not being duly followed.
The show cause reply was received from the petitioner upon
the enquiry was concluded and finally, it ended with a major
penalty imposed on him and until then, no such question was
raised as to the legality of the disciplinary proceeding.
According to the State, regular procedure was followed vis-à-
vis the disciplinary proceeding against the petitioner. With
the nature of evidence proposed against the petitioner and he
having participated all through, the Court is of the view that
such an objection long thereafter is not acceptable. Of course,
a procedure prescribed as per the rules is to be sacrosanctly
followed. It is the stand of the State that the Disciplinary
Authority followed the procedure according to the rules
without any deviation. Having regard to the plea of the
petitioner and response of the State and since there has been
closure of the departmental proceeding, this Court is of the
view that such a ground cannot now be permitted to be
agitated when it was raised by him at the earliest point of
time or even for consideration of the Appellate Authority
clearly revealed from Annexure-13 series. The entire
challenge is based on the evidence on record without ever
questioning the procedure followed by the Disciplinary
Authority, namely, opposite party No.3 and therefore, the
ground of challenge on such count is liable to be rejected.
14. As regards the evidence received during enquiry as
against the memo of charge alleging disobedience, it is made
to understand that the petitioner did not attend the crime
meeting on the date fixed with a plea that his presence is not
required and was in office entrusted with an urgent work by
the DSP, DIB, who had gone to attend the meeting. In course
of enquiry, a witness, namely, D.W.1, the Inspector of Police,
Crime Section, DPO, Jajpur deposed that for the crime
meeting, the petitioner was called by the S.I. of Police to
accompany him but he replied by stating that the DSP, DIB
has proceeded to attend the same and hence, it is not
necessary for any sub-ordinate officer to be there besides
claiming that an urgent work has been entrusted. Irrespective
of any verbal instruction issued, the fact remains, it was
expected that the petitioner would be present during the crime
meeting. In fact, the evidence reveals that all the Section
Head and Branch Sections were duly communicated about
the meeting and the orders were issued verbally and as such,
all the staff were to remain present for the meeting. On a
proper reading, the sum and substance of the evidence
suggests that the petitioner had the knowledge about the
crime meeting but he did not attend the same with an
impression that his presence may not be required. For some
work entrusted to him by DSP, DIB, hence, he was at office
is coming forth. But, absence of the petitioner has been taken
as an exception. Since the authority concerned is well aware
of the responsibility of each of the officials to attend the
crime meeting, this Court is not inclined to delve deeper into
it for a decision on the petitioner's explanation, whether, to
be accepted or otherwise. Prima facie, on a reading of overall
evidence, this Court finds that the petitioner has been found
guilty of disobedience. Earlier instances of disobedience and
dereliction in duty had been reported against the petitioner.
Being a member of the disciplinary force, any such
misconduct on the part of the petitioner, according to the
Court, could not have been condoned. As the Court,, having
regard to the settled legal position discussed hereinbefore, is
of the humble view that the impugned decision as per
Annexure-1upholding the guilt of the petitioner should not be
disturbed. While exercising writ jurisdiction, a Court is only
concerned with the decision making process and to find fault
therein and to intervene, only if, there is any gross error
apparent on the face of record and not to re-appreciate the
evidence like an authority in appeal for a decision on merit.
Only under such situations, the power of judicial review is to
be exercised. The Court is not to reassess the evidence and
interfere with the conclusion arrived at in the enquiry if the
same has been conducted in accordance with law and not to
go into the adequacy of the evidence received. Even an error
of fact, however, grave it may appear to be, law is well
settled that the same should not be interfered with by a Writ
Court exercising jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 of
the Constitution of India and equally it is not open to go into
the proportionality of the punishment so long as the
punishment does not shock its conscience. In the instant case,
the disciplinary authority has reached at a conclusion about
the disobedience of the petitioner and it has been upheld in
appeal by opposite party No.2. But, the Court is of the further
view that the punishment is little bit on the higher side in
view of the explanation offered and may be said be
disproportionate to the charge proved against the petitioner.
Of course, a member of the disciplined force is not to
misconduct himself. In police force, discipline is jealously
guarded and any such disobedience reported is sternly dealt
with but in the case hand, the punishment imposed on the
petitioner, for the impression, he carried and the explanation
offered, does appear to be excessive, which, therefore,
according to the Court, should be substituted by a censure, as
for failing to attend a crime meeting, imposition of a black
mark, though, a formal disciplinary penalty, would be
disproportionate, which is to affect his career progression.
Before parting with, it is clarified that previous punishments
against the petitioner as brought to the notice of the Court
that influenced the Disciplinary Authority to initiate the
action followed by the penalty should not have any impact on
the decision vis-a-vis penalty, which is to depend on the
nature of misconduct or disobedience alleged and proved.
15. Hence, it is ordered.
16. In the result, the writ petition stands partly allowed. As a
necessary corollary, the impugned order at Annnexure-1
dated 21st December, 2020 of opposite party No.2 is hereby
modified to the extent indicated herein above.
Reason: Authentication (R.K. Pattanaik)
Date: 15-Oct-2025 20:24:28 Judge
TUDU
