[Cites 1, Cited by 0]
Orissa High Court
K. Rajendra Swamy vs State Of Odisha And on 20 February, 2026
Author: Biraja Prasanna Satapathy
Bench: Biraja Prasanna Satapathy
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
W.P.(C) No.35589 of 2023
K. Rajendra Swamy .... Petitioner
Mr. B.S. Tripathy, Sr. Advocate
with Mr. A. Sahoo, Advocate
-versus-
State of Odisha and
Others .... Opposite Parties
Mr. P.K. Panda, ASC
CORAM:
JUSTICE BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY
ORDER
Order No. 20.02.2026
02. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid
Arrangement (Virtual/Physical) Mode.
2. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
3. The present Writ Petition has been filed inter alia
challenging order dated 24.08.2023, so passed by the
Opp. Party No.1 under Annexure-11 communicated
vide letter dated 07.10.2023.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that
in the proceeding initiated against the petitioner, when
punishment was imposed vide order dated 31.07.2017
by imposing the punishment of "withholding of one
increment which shall continue to hold for future",
petitioner filed an appeal against the said order.
4.1. When appeal was also rejected, petitioner
approached this Court by filing W.P.C(OAC) No.1391 of
// 2 //
2019. This Court vide order dated 03.04.2023 under
Annexure-10, while disposing the matter, directed the
Disciplinary Authority to take a fresh decision on the
punishment so imposed under Annexure-7 confirmed
vide order under Annexure-9 to the said Writ Petition.
4.2. It is contended that this Court while directing so,
clearly held that petitioner has no latches with regard
to non-submission of the charge-sheet by 10.05.2010
being the I.O. of the case and accordingly the charge
framed against him in the proceeding, cannot sustain.
But on the face of such clear finding of this Court in its
order dated 03.04.2023 under Annexure-10, Opp.
Party No.1 refused to consider the punishment so
imposed and rejected the same vide the impugned
order dated 24.08.2023 under Annexure-11.
4.3. It is vehemently contended that in view of the
clear finding of this Court so given in Para-6 of the
order dated 03.04.2023 under Annexure-10, there was
no occasion on the part of Opp. Party No.1 to reject the
petitioner's claim for re-calling of the order of
punishment so imposed in the disciplinary proceeding
vide order dated 31.07.2017 under Annexure-7, so
confirmed vide order dated 11.08.2017 under
Annexure-8. This Court in Para-6 of the order dated
03.04.2023 has held as follows:-
"6. Having heard learned counsel appearing for the
Parties and after going through the materials available on
// 3 //
record, it is found that the charge against the Petitioner is
very specific i.e. due to non-submission of charge-sheet
by 10.05.2010 as I.O. of the case, one of the accused
was released on bail in terms of the provision contained
under Sec. 167(2) Cr.P.C. It is found from the enquiry
report that the Petitioner has in fact submitted the charge-
sheet on 10.05.2010 and because of the fault of the CSI,
the same could not be brought to the notice of the learned
SDJM, Cuttack and accordingly the benefit was extended
in favour of one of the accused as per the provision
contained under Sec. 167(2) Cr.P.C."
5. Learned Addl. Standing Counsel on the other
hand made his submission basing on the stand taken
in the counter affidavit so filed. It is contended that
since because of the latches on the part of the
petitioner in not submitting the charge-sheet on
10.05.2010, one of the accused got the benefit of bail in
terms of the provisions contained under Section 167(2)
of Cr.P.C., the proceeding in question was initiated
against him.
5.1. Since in the said proceeding, petitioner was held
guilty of the charges by the Enquiry Officer, he was
imposed with the punishment of withholding of one
increment which shall continue to hold for future vide
order dated 31.07.2017 under Annexure-7. Appeal filed
by the petitioner was also rejected vide order dated
11.08.2017 under Annexure-8.
5.2. This Court when remitted the matter to Opp.
Party No.1 for re-consideration of the punishment so
imposed, after proper appreciation of the materials
available on record, petitioner's claim was re-
// 4 //
considered and rejected vide the impugned order dated
24.08.2023 under Annexure-11.
5.3. It is contended that since petitioner never
submitted the charge-sheet by 10.05.2010 and because
of his negligence being the I.O., one of the accused got
the benefit of bail, petitioner has been rightly imposed
with the punishment, which requires no interference.
6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and
considering the submissions made, this Court finds
that in the proceeding in question, petitioner when was
imposed with the punishment vide order under
Annexure-7 so confirmed vide order under Annexure-8,
petitioner challenging both the orders, approached this
Court by filing W.P.C(OAC) No.1391 of 2019.
6.1. This Court vide order dated 03.04.2023, while
dealing with the issue, came to a finding that petitioner
in fact had submitted the charge-sheet on 10.05.2010
and because of negligence of the concerned CSI, the
same could not brought to the knowledge of the learned
SDJM, Cuttack, and accordingly benefit of bail was
extended in favour of one of the accused as per the
provisions contained under Section-167(2) of the
Cr.P.C.
6.2. While holding so, this Court remits the matter to
Opp. Party No.1 to take a fresh decision with regard to
the punishment imposed on the petitioner vide order
// 5 //
under Annexure-7. But as found, Opp. Party No.1
without proper appreciation of the finding of this Court
so indicated in Para-6 of the order, has upheld the
order of punishment so passed under Annexure-7
confirmed vide order under Annexure-8.
6.3. This Court taking into account the finding of this
Court in Para-6 of the order dated 03.04.2023, is of the
view that order of punishment so imposed on the
petitioner under Annexure-7 confirmed vide order
under Annexure-8, could not have been imposed.
6.4. Therefore, this Court while quashing order dated
24.08.2023, so issued under Annexure-11 by Opp.
Party No.1, also quash the order of punishment passed
against the petitioner vide order under Annexure-7,
confirmed vide order under Annexure-8. This Court
directs Opp. Party No.1 to extend consequential
benefits as due and admissible in favour of the
petitioner because of the quashing of the order of
punishment.
7. The Writ Petition stands disposed of accordingly.
(Biraja Prasanna Satapathy)
Judge
Basudev
Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack
