[Cites 0, Cited by 0]
Orissa High Court
Padmanava Nath vs The M.D on 3 February, 2026
Author: Biraja Prasanna Satapathy
Bench: Biraja Prasanna Satapathy
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
WP(C )No.2654 of 2022
Padmanava Nath ..... Petitioner
Mr. S.K. Das, Adv.
-versus-
The M.D., M/s. Orissa ..... Opposite Parties
Development Mr. S. Pattaniak, Adv.
Corporation Ltd., BBSR (for O.P. No.1)
& Others
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY
ORDER
03.02.2026
Order No.10
1. 1. This matter is taken up through hybrid mode.
2. Heard learned counsel appearing for the parties.
3. The present Wit Petition has been filed inter alia
challenging the order of punishment passed by the
Disciplinary Authority-Opp. party No.4 on 31.08.2009
under Annexure-5 and confirmation of the same by the
appellate authority-Opp. Party No.1 vide order
dt.06.08.2012 under Annexure-8.
3.1. Learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner
contended that Petitioner while in service, the proceeding
in question was initiated against him by Opp. party No.4
vide memorandum dt.01.12.1996. It is contended that
even though Petitioner filed his reply to the charges on
15.12.1996 under Annexure-4, but thereafter without
causing any inquiry with appointment of the Inquiry
Officer, Petitioner was straightaway imposed with the
punishment vide the impugned order dt.31.08.2009 under
Annexure-5. It is contended that even though Petitioner
preferred an appeal before Opp. party No.1, but the
Appellate Authority without proper appreciation of the
grounds of appeal, rejected the same vide order
dt.07.12.2018 under Annexure-8.
3.2. It is contended that in the Writ Petition, a specific
stand has also been taken in para-8 with regard to non-
appointment of the Inquiry Officer and conduct of any
inquiry, basing on which the impugned order of
punishment was passed under Annexure-5, so confirmed
vide order under Annexure-8. A kind perusal of the
impugned order will also show that, no inquiry was ever
conducted.
3.3. It is however contended that even though in the
impugned order, it has been indicated that Petitioner never
participated in the inquiry so fixed to 02.06.2009,
22.06.2009 and 3.08.2009, but no such notice was ever
served on the Petitioner for his appearance before the
Inquiry Officer on the dates so indicated. It is also
contended that order of appointment of the Inquiry Officer
so made vide order dt.12.02.1998 and reflected in the
impugned order was never communicated to the Petitioner
and Petitioner had no knowledge about such appointment
of an Inquiry Officer. It is accordingly contended that since
no inquiry was conducted by giving due opportunity of
hearing to the Petitioner and basing on a purported inquiry
report, Petitioner was imposed with the punishment vide
order dt.31.07.2009 under Annexure-5, so confirmed by
the appellate authority vide order dt.07.08.2012 under
Annexure-8, both the orders are not sustainable in the eye
of law, and require interference of this Court. It is also
contended that the impugned order having been passed
after retirement of the Petitioner on 31.05.2009, is not in
accordance with law.
3.4. Making all these submissions, learned counsel
appearing for the Petitioner prays for interference of this
Court with the impugned orders.
4. Mr. Satyajit Pattanaik, learned counsel appearing for
the Opp. Party-Corporation on the other hand made his
submission basing on the stand taken in the counter
affidavit so filed.
4.1. It is contended that after appointment of the Inquiry
Officer vide order dt.12.02.1998, the Inquiry Officer though
issued notices to the Petitioner fixing date of inquiry to
02.06.2009 and thereafter to 03.08.2009 vide Annexure-D
series, but Petitioner never participated in the inquiry. It is
accordingly contended that since Petitioner never
participated in the inquiry, on the face of the notices issued
under Annexure-D series and the Inquiry Officer while
submitting the report leave it open for the Disciplinary
Authority to take an ex parte decision on the issue, Opp.
Party No.4 while disposing of the Proceeding, imposed the
punishment of recovery of Rs.74,461.80p. from the retiral
dues of the Petitioner in one installment vide order
dt.31.07.2009 under Annexure-5. It is accordingly
contended that since Petitioner on the face of the notices
issued by the Inquiry Officer never participated in the
inquiry, the stand taken in the Writ Petition in that regard
is not acceptable.
4.2. It is also contended that against the order of
punishment so passed by the Disciplinary Authority-Opp.
Party No.4, Petitioner though moved an appeal, but the
appellate authority also rejected the same vide order
dt.07.8.2012 under Annexure-8. It is accordingly
contended that no illegality or irregularity can be found
with the impugned order of punishment.
5. Having heard learned counsel appearing for the
parties sand considering the submission made, this Court
finds that the proceeding in question was initiated against
the Petitioner vide Memorandum dt.01.12.1996 under
Annexure-3. Though in the impugned order so passed by
the Disciplinary Authority under Annexure-5, a stand has
been taken that the Inquiry Officer was appointed vide
order dt.12.02.1998, but no such document is enclosed to
the counter affidavit filed by the Corporation, showing
such appointment of the Inquiry Officer. No document has
been enclosed as to whether the Inquiry Officer so
appointed on 12.02.1998, was competent to proceed with
the inquiry by issuing the notice on 16.05.2009 and
thereafter on 20.07.2009, fixing the date of inquiry under
Annexure-D series. No document has also been annexed to
the counter enclosed showing service of the notices on the
Petitioner so issued by the Inquiry Officer.
5.1. Since no such document is enclosed to the counter
affidavit showing appointment of the Inquiry Officer in the
year 1998 and no reason has been assigned why the
Inquiry Officer so appointed in the year 1998 proceeded
with the inquiry in the year 2009 and there is also no
document showing that such a notice issued by the Inquiry
Officer was served on the Petitioner, this Court is inclined
to accept the contention raised by the Petitioner regarding
non-service of the order of appointment of the Inquiry
Officer and non-service of the notices issued by the Inquiry
Officer on the Petitioner.
5.2. In that view of the matter, this Court is of the view
that since the order of punishment has been passed
without having any inquiry in the matter, the same is not
sustainable in the eye of law.
5.3. Therefore, this Court is inclined to quash order
dt.31.08.2009 so issued by Opp. party No.4 under
Anenxure-5 and further order passed by Appellate
Authority-Opp. party No.1 on 06.08.2012 under Annexure-
8. While quashing both the orders and taking into account
the fact that the Proceeding is of the year 1996 and
Petitioner has retired since 31.05.2009 is not inclined to
remit the proceeding for fresh disposal. This Court
accordingly directs Opp. Party No.1 to release the recovery
amount to the tune of Rs.74,461.80p. in favour of the
Petitioner within a period of 4(four) weeks hence.
6. The Writ Petition accordingly stands disposed of.
(Biraja Prasanna Satapathy)
Judge
Sangita
Reason: authentication of order
Location: high court of orissa, cuttack
Date: 11-Feb-2026 18:47:17
