[Cites 2, Cited by 0]
Orissa High Court
Rohit Kumar Sahu vs Director General And Inspector Of .... ... on 26 February, 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
W.P. C.(OAC) No.2489 of 2005
(In the matter of an application under Articles 226 and 227 of the
Constitution of India)
Rohit Kumar Sahu .... Petitioner
-versus-
Director General and Inspector of .... Opposite Parties
General of Police, Orissa Cuttack
and others
Appeared in this case:-
For Petitioner : Mr. M.K. Khuntia, Advocate
For Opposite Parties : Mr. Gyanaloka Mohanty,
Learned Standing Counsel
CORAM:
JUSTICE A.C. BEHERA
JUDGMENT
Date of hearing : 18.02.2026 / date of judgment : 26.02.2026
A.C. Behera, J. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner against the
Opposite Parties praying for setting aside(quashing) an order dated
07.06.2004 vide Annexure-4 passed in Proceeding No.16 of 2003 by the
Commandant, O.S.A.P., 4th Battalion, Rourkela(Opposite Party No.3)
against the petitioner for his removal from the service w.e.f. 07.06.2004
as well as the order of confirmation to that Annexure-4 passed by the I.G.
of Police SAP, Orissa, Cuttack(Opposite Party No.2) and D.G. of Police,
Orissa, Cuttack(Opposite Party No.1) in appeal and revision respectively
and to direct the Opposite Parties to reinstate him(petitioner) in his
service giving anti-dated effect and also to direct to the Opposite Parties
to treat the period of suspension as duty.
2. The case of the petitioner is that, he(petitioner-Rohit Kumar Sahu)
was properly selected in an interview as a Sepoy and on dated
07.07.1989, he was duly appointed as a Sepoy and his number was
Sepoy/335. He was posted at 4th Battalion, Rourkela. Accordingly, since
07.07.1989, he was discharging his duties with utmost devotion,
commitment and stainless to all concerned. His service carrier was
spotless, unblemished. While, he was continuing as a Sepoy, he was
elected on dated 23.08.2002 as the Secretary of Branch Association, 4th
Battalion O.S.A.P.
On dated 04.12.2003, he was commanded by his immediate
superior to go on deputation to Barbil Police Station in the district of
Keonjhar, but, to that effect no written order was issued. So, the
petitioner made a representation on dated 05.12.2003 to the
Commandant, O.S.A.P., 4th Battalion, Rourkela(Opposite Party No.3) not
to depute him to Barbil Police Station, as the same is outside the
Battalion of the Headquarters in view of the letter of A.I.G. dated
22.06.1985. Because, he is the Secretary of Branch Association, 4th
Battalion and it is required for him to be stationed at Headquarters, as in
the said letter, it was specifically indicated that, the office bearers of the
Association, i.e., President, Secretary and Cashier should be stationed at
Headquarters.
While, his representation vide Annexure-1 series was under
consideration, a show-cause was issued to him on dated 10.12.2003 vide
Anenxure-2 alleging disobedience of the order of his superior, then, a
departmental proceeding vide Proceeding No.16 dated 10.12.2003 was
initiated against him and enquiry was conducted. The Enquiring Officer
submitted report in Proceeding No.16 of 2003 vide Annexure-3 stating
that, the charge framed against him(petitioner) relating to his
disobedience to the order of his superior is proved.
3. On the basis of the said enquiry report vide Annexure-3, the
Disciplinary Authority, i.e., Opposite Party No.3 passed an order on
dated 07.06.2004 vide Annexure-4 removing/dismissing him(petitioner)
from the service w.e.f. 07.06.2004 on the ground of his gross utter
indiscipline conduct and disobedience of the order of the authority
assigning the reasons that,
"conduct of the petitioner, i.e., refusing to receive Command
Certificate to proceed for Government duty and disobedience to the
order of the authority does not deserve him to continue in a disciplined
Police Department. His continuance in the department will poisionous to
the disciplined department, which will reflect to the other forces and his
suspension period w.e.f. 09.12.2003 A.M. to 11.12.2003 P.M.(total three
days) is treated as such."
4. On being dissatisfied with the above removal of the petitioner from
the service passed on dated 07.06.2004 vide Annexure-4 by the
Disciplinary Authority(Opposite Party No.3), he (petitioner) challenged
the same by preferring an appeal vide B.O. No.1056 of 2005 before the
I.G. of Police, SAP, Orissa, Cuttack(Opposite Party No.2), but, the said
appeal of the petitioner was rejected as per order vide Annexure-5 passed
by the Opposite Party No.2 concurring / confirming the
removal/dismissal order passed against the petitioner from his service as
per Annexure-4 by the Opposite Party No.3.
To which, the petitioner challenged by filing a revision before the
D.G. of Police, Orissa Cuttack(Opposite Party No.1), but, the said
revision of the petitioner was also dismissed as per Annexure-B
confirming the order passed in Annexures-4 and 5.
5. On being aggrieved with the orders of dismissal of the petitioner
from his service passed by the Opposite Parties in Annexures-4, 5 and B,
he(petitioner) challenged the same by filing O.A. No.2489(C) of 2005 on
dated 30.12.2005 before the Administrative Tribunal, Cuttack Bench,
Cuttack being the petitioner against the Opposite Parties praying for a
declaration that, the order of his removal from service as per order dated
07.06.2004 passed by the Opposite Parties are non-est in the eye of law
and to direct the Opposite Party to reinstate him in his service with anti-
dated effect and to direct the Opposite Parties to treat the period of
suspension as duty.
6. Having been noticed from the State Administrative Tribunal,
Cuttack Bench, Cuttack in O.A. No.2489(C) of 2005, the Opposite
Parties filed their counter affidavits taking their stands that, when, the
petitioner without receiving the Command Certificate regarding his
deputation to Barbil Police Station, he intentionally and deliberately
disobeyed the order of the competent authority and when, the said charge
against him was duly established, then, his removal from his service is
neither illegal nor unreasonable. Therefore, O.A. No.2489(C) of 2005
filed by him(petitioner) is liable to be dismissed.
7. Subsequent thereto, due to the abolition of the Orissa
Administrative Tribunal, the O.A. No.2489(C) of 2005 filed by the
petitioner was taken over by the High Court for its disposal as per law
and that O.A. No.2489(C) of 2005 was numbered as this W.P.C(OAC)
No.2489 of 2005.
8. I have already heard from the learned counsel for the petitioner
and learned Standing Counsel for the State.
9. On perusal of the Annexures-1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and B, it appears that,
"the finding of guilt of the charge against the petitioner in the
disciplinary proceeding No.16 for his disobedience to the order of his
immediate superior for non-receiving the Command Certificate relating
to his deputation to Barbil Police Station is not erroneous.
For which, there is no scope to interfere with the finding of guilt of
the petitioner by the disciplinary authority, i.e., Opposite Party No.3 and
the confirmation of the same by the Opposite Party Nos.2 and 1 in appeal
and revision."
10. During the course of hearing of the writ petition, the learned
counsel for the petitioner contended that, the punishment imposed against
the petitioner as per Annexure-4 by the Opposite Party No.3 and the
confirmation of the same by the Opposite Party Nos.2 and 1 regarding his
removal from service for his single fault, i.e., for non-receiving the
Command Certificate relating to his deputation from his immediate
superior is grossly disproportionate to the proved charge, for which, the
punishment imposed against the petitioner for his removal/dismissal from
the service is shockingly harsh and excessive, the same is liable to be
modified/reduced.
To which, learned Standing Counsel for the State vehemently
objected contending that, the above conduct of the petitioner, i.e., his
disobedience to the direction of his immediate superior, i.e., non-
receiving Command Certificate relating to his deputation to Barbil Police
Station is against the character of an employee of the disciplined police
department and also contended that, when, he(petitioner) being the
servant of the disciplined police department disobeyed the direction of
his immediate superior, then, his service in the said department is no
more beneficial and the order of his removal/dismissal from the service is
proper.
11. Now, it will be seen, whether the above imposed penalty, i.e.,
removal/dismissal of the petitioner from his service for his single fault,
i.e., for non-receiving the Command Certificate relating to his deputation
from his immediate superior is proper commensurating the proved charge
against him (petitioner) or the said punishment is shockingly
disproportionate.
12. It is the settled propositions of law that, "disciplinary proceedings
are meant not really to punish the guilt, but, to keep the administrative
machinery unsullied by getting rid of bad elements.
Even if, by misconduct of an employee, the employer does not
suffer any financial loss, he can be removed from service in a case of loss
of confidence.
Loss of confidence cannot be subjective, but, there must be
objective of facts, which would lead to a definite inference of
apprehension in the mind of the employer regarding trustworthiness of
the employee and which must be alleged and proved."
13. Here in this matter at hand, the petitioner had joined in his service
as a Sepoy on dated 07.07.1989 and he was removed from his service on
dated 07.06.2004 and as such, by the time of his removal from the
service as per order vide Annexure-4 passed by the Opposite Party No.3,
he(petitioner) had already served about fifteen years and during the said
period of his service, there was no stigma/blemish in his service since
07.07.1989 to 07.06.2004.
What is the proportionate in the quantum of punishment
non-commensurating with the proved charge and the scope/limit of
interference with the quantum of punishment has already been clarified
in the ratio of the following decisions:-
(i) In a case between Ranjit Thakur vrs. Union of India and
others : reported in (1987) 4 SCC-611 that,
Referring to the proportionality in the quantum of punishment, the
Apex Court observed that, when the punishment is shockingly
disproportionate to the misconduct proved, then, only the court can
interfere with such punishment.
(ii) In a case between P. Areya Reddy vrs. Presiding Officer,
Labour Court, Bhubaneswar and another : reported in 111(2011)
CLT-797 that,
If the punishment awarded in disproportionate to the gravity of
misconduct, it would be arbitrary and violative of mandate of
Article-14 of the Constitution of India, 1950, in that case court can
interfere with such awarded punishment.
(iii) In a case between Shakil Ahmad vrs. Union of India and
four others : reported in 2022 SSC Online Allahabad-1937 that,
When the punishment is found to be outrageously disproportionate to
the nature of charge, principle of proportionality comes into play.
The court should take into account that, the punishment is not
vindictive or unduly harsh. It should not be disproportionate to the
offence so as to shock the conscience and amount in itself to a
conclusive evidence of bias. Irrationality and perversity are
recognized grounds of judicial review.
(iv) In a case between B.C. Chaturvedi vrs. Union of India and
others : reported in AIR 1996 (SC)-484 that,
Disciplinary authority and on appeals, appellate authority are
invested with the discretion to impose appropriate punishment
keeping in view the magnitude or gravity of the misconduct. The
High Court/Tribunal, while exercising the power of judicial review,
cannot normally substitute its own conclusion on penalty and impose
some other penalty.
If the punishment imposed by the disciplinary authority or the
appellate authority shocks the conscience of the High
Court/Tribunal, it would appropriately mould the relief, either
directing the disciplinary/appellate authority to reconsider penalty
imposed, or to shorten the litigation, it may itself, in exceptional and
rare cases, impose appropriate punishment with cogent reasons in
support thereof.(Para-18)
(v) In a case between S.R. Tiwari vrs. Union of India: reported
in (2013) 6 SCC-602 that,
While discussing scope of judicial review the Supreme Court
observed that Courts can interfere with quantum of punishment only
where he punishment awarded is fund to be shockingly
disproportionate to the gravity of misconduct. It is only in extreme
case which on the facts show perversity or irrationality that there can
be a judicial review of punishment and Court should not interfere
merely on compassionate grounds.
(vi ) In a case between V. Ramana vrs. A.P. S.R.T.C. and others :
reported in (2005) 7 SCC-338 that,
With regard to disproportionate of punishment, the Supreme Court
compared the Indian law with the English Law on judicial review
and placing reliance of several previous judgments concluded that,
every administrative order should not suffer from any arbitrariness.
Scope of judicial review as to quantum of punishment is permissible,
only, if it is found that, it does not commensurate with the gravity of
charge and if the court comes to the conclusion that, the quantum of
punishment is shocking to the conscience of the Court, in the sense
that, it was in defial of logic and moral standards.
Therefore, in the normal course, if the punishment imposed is
shockingly disproportionate, it is open to the Court to direct the
disciplinary authority to reconsider the penalty imposed or to shorten
the litigation in exceptional cases, the Court itself can impose
appropriate punishment by recording cogent reasons.
(vii) In a case between Chairman-cum-Managing Director Coal
India Ltd. and another vrs. Mukul Kumar Choudhuri and
others(Para-19) : reported in (2009) 15 SCC-620 that,
The doctrine of proportionality is a well recognized concept of
judicial review in Indian jurisprudence.
What is otherwise within the discretionary domain and sole power of
the decision maker to quantify punishment, once the charge of
misconduct stands proved, such discretionary power is exposed to
judicial intervention, if exercised in a manner, which is out of
proportion to the fault.
Award of punishment which is grossly in excess to the allegations
cannot claim immunity and remains open for interference under
limited scope of judicial review.
(viii) In a case between Jai Bhagwan vrs. Commissioner of Police
and others : reported in (2013) 11 SCC-187 that,
When a punishment is so excessive or disproportionate to the
offence as to shock the conscience of the Court is seen as
unacceptable even when the courts are slow and generally reluctant
to interfer with the quantum of punishment. The doctrine of
proportionality can be invoked by superior courts and Tribunals as
one of the facets of judicial review. Held punishment of dismissal
imposed for kind of misconduct proved was grossly
disproportionate.
14. Here in this matter at hand, when the petitioner has rendered his
service successfully for a considerable continuous period about fifteen
years without any blemish/stigma in his service during that period and
when, his aforesaid long period of service rendered by him(petitioner)
has been set aside by the order of dismissal/removal from his service
passed by the Opposite Party No.3 in Annexure-4 and when, the said
order of dismissal/removal from his service has been confirmed by the
Opposite Party Nos.2 and 1 as per Annexures-5 and B for his single fault
in a single incident, i.e., for non-receiving the Command Certificate from
his superior relating to his deputation, then, at this juncture, such
dismissal/removal of the petitioner from his service as per Annexure-4
and the confirmation of the same as per Annexures-5 and B by the
Opposite Parties is shockingly disproportionate to the above proved
charge against him, as the imposed punishment against him(petitioner)
for his removal/dismissal from the service debarring him(petitioner) to
get any service benefit even during the period, he had rendered his
service successfully is not commensurating with the above charge proved
against him(petitioner).
Because, as per law, in case of imposition of extreme penalty
against an employee like the petitioner, i.e., removal/dismissal from the
service debarring him(petitioner) to get any sort of service benefits, there
must have an observation in the impugned order of his removal from
service that,
"no other punishment, than, his dismissal from the service is suitable for
the misconduct proved against him(petitioner) and the proved charge
against him(petitioner) is so serious in nature that, which would only
attract the penalty of dismissal/removal from the service and no other
lesser punishment is permissible for him(petitioner) under law, but the
Opposite Parties have not done so."
15. On this aspect, the propositions of law has already been clarified in
the ratio of the following decisions:-
(i) In a case between Deputy Inspector General of Police,
CRPF and others vrs. Ahhilesh Kumar : reported in (2007) 6 SLR-
438 that,
When, allegations leveled against the respondent were not so serious
in nature, which would have attracted the penalty of dismissal from
service, then the penalty of dismissal from the service can be
reduced/modified.
(ii) In a case between Inderjit vrs. Punjab and Haryana High
Court and another : reported in (2011) 1 SCC(L&S)-249 that,
Penalty of dismissal imposed on the appellant due to his absence
from duty found disproportionate.
(iii) In a case between Indu Bhusan Dwivedi vrs. State of
Jharkhand and another : reported in (2011) 1 SCC(L&S)-64 that,
Failure to remain at headquarters during the period of suspension
was not sufficient to impose extreme penalty of dismissal.
(iv) In a case between Surendra Prasad Shukla vrs. State of
Jharkhand and others : reported in (2011) 1 SCC(L&S)-372 that,
The appellant was working as Head Constable. He was found guilt
by the disciplinary authority on the basis of the report of the
enquiring officer in respect of the charge proved against him, i.e., for
recovery of a stolen car from his Government quarter and he was
dismissed from his service. The appellate authority and revisional
authority agreed with the disciplinary authority.
Held, as the long period of service rendered by the applicant was set
aside by the order of dismissal on the above ground, then, his
dismissal from service was shockingly disproportionate to the above
negligence proved against him. Therefore, his dismissal from the
service was modified to compulsory retirement.
16. Here in this matter at hand, when the petitioner being a
Government servant as a Sepoy in police department has rendered his
service to the department in a disciplined manner since 07.07.1989 to
07.06.2004 for a period about fifteen years, then at this juncture,
he(petitioner) should not have been punished with dismissal from his
service on being deprived to get his pension and other benefits as per
law for the period, to which, he had rendered his service successfully.
17. Therefore, the punishment imposed against him(petitioner) as per
Annexure-4 by the Opposite Party No.3 and the confirmation to the same
as per Annexures-5 and B by the Opposite Party Nos.2 and 1 regarding
his removal/dismissal from his service w.e.f. 07.06.2004 shocks the
conscience of this Court.
18. For which, it is held that, the said punishment imposed against the
petitioner is disproportionate to the above charge proved against
him(petitioner) and the imposed punishment against the petitioner for his
removal/dismissal from the service is not commensurating with the
alleged single misconduct of the petitioner for non-receiving the
Command Certificate from his superior relating to his deputation.
19. Therefore, this Court, in order to shorten the litigation, it is felt
proper for the reduction of the punishment imposed against the petitioner
by the Opposite Party No.3 in Annexure-4 and the confirmation of the
same by the Opposite Party Nos.2 and 1 in Annexures-5 and B from the
dismissal/removal of his service to compulsory retirement
modifying/moulding the said punishment in order to entitle the petitioner
to get his pension and other benefits as per law for his service since
07.07.1989 to 07.06.2004 instead of sending the matter back to the
disciplinary authority again.
20. As such, without making any interference with the finding of guilt
recorded against the petitioner, it is felt proper to interfere only with the
quantum of punishment imposed by the Opp. Parties against
him(petitioner) under Annexures-4, 5 and B for its
reduction/modification to the extent as indicated above.
21. For which, this writ petition filed by the petitioner is to be allowed
in part.
22. In result, this writ petition filed by the petitioner is allowed in part.
The punishment imposed against the petitioner by the Opposite
Party No.3 in Annexure-4 and the confirmation of the same in
Annexures-5 and B by the Opposite Party Nos.2 and 1 relating to the
removal/dismissal of the petitioner from his service is modified to one
compulsory retirement of the petitioner from his service with effect from
the date, i.e., 07.06.2004, from which, the order of dismissal was given
effect to in Annexure-4.
The petitioner shall be entitled to admissible pension and other
retirement benefits in accordance with the rules governing the field.
Therefore, the Opposite Parties including the Opposite Party No.3
are directed to release all the retirement benefits including the pension in
favour of the petitioner, to which, he (petitioner) is eligible as per law
within a period of three months from the date of receipt of this judgment.
The Registry is directed to communicate the copies of this
judgment immediately to the petitioner as well as Opposite Parties.
With the aforesaid modification of the punishment imposed against
the petitioner, this writ petition filed by the petitioner is disposed of
finally.
Digitally Signed ( A.C. Behera )
Designation: Personal Assistant
Reason: Authentication
Judge
Location: OHC, CUTTACKOrissa High Court, Cuttack
Date: 27-Feb-2026 13:40:27 th
The 26 of February, 2026/ Jagabandhu, P.A.
