[Cites 0, Cited by 0]
Orissa High Court
Subrat Kumar Tripathy vs State Of Odisha And on 4 February, 2026
Author: Biraja Prasanna Satapathy
Bench: Biraja Prasanna Satapathy
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
W.P.(C) No.8037 of 2021
Subrat Kumar Tripathy .... Petitioner
Mr. N. Lenka, Advocate
-versus-
State of Odisha and
Others .... Opp. Parties
Mr. D. Mohapatra,
Sr. Adv. with Mr. A.K.
Pradhan, Advocate for O.P.
No.2
CORAM:
JUSTICE BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY
Order ORDER
No 04.02.2026
11. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid
Arrangement (Virtual/Physical) Mode.
2. Heard learned counsel for the Parties.
3. Though the present Writ Petition has been filed with
multiple prayer, but in course of hearing, learned counsel
for the petitioner confined his prayer so far as issuance of
the impugned corrigendum dated 20.01.2021 under
Annexure-30.
4. It is contended that petitioner while in service, a
proceeding in question was initiated vide Proceeding
No.5693 dated 08.09.2001 under Annexure-1. Thereafter,
// 2 //
enquiry officer was appointed vide order dated 08.10.2001
under Annexure-2. In the said proceeding, petitioner not
only filed the written statement of defence but also
participated in the enquiry. The Disciplinary Authority
after taking into account the stand of the petitioner vis-à-
vis the report submitted by the enquiry officer, disposed of
the proceeding vide office order dated 11.05.2006 under
Annexure-24 by imposing the following punishment:-
"1. He is censured and the same be recorded in the
service book.
2. One increment is withheld with cumulative effect."
4.1. It is contended that petitioner thereafter preferred an
appeal against the order of punishment under Annexure-
25. It is contended that prior to disposal of the appeal by
the Appellate Authority, when the impugned corrigendum
was issued on 20.01.2021 under Annexure-30, the
present Writ Petition was filed inter alia challenging the
same.
4.2. It is the case of the petitioner that the proceeding
was initiated vide Proceeding No.5693 dated 08.09.2001
under Annexure-1 and the same remained as such till
disposal of the proceeding with passing of the final order
on 11.05.2006 under Annexure-24. But during
consideration of the appeal so filed by the petitioner under
Annexure-25, the impugned corrigendum was issued by
holding that the date of initiation of the proceeding has
Page 2 of 6
// 3 //
been wrongly typed as 08.09.2001 and it should be
08.10.2001
with the proceeding number being the same.
4.3. Learned counsel for the petitioner while challenging
corrigendum, contended that date of initiation of
proceeding cannot be taken as 08.10.2001 as on the very
same date vide order under Annexure-2, the enquiry
officer was appointed. It is contended that since the
proceeding was initiated under Rule-15 of the OCS(CCA)
Rules, 1962, there is no such provision for appointment of
the enquiry officer on the very date of initiation of the
proceeding.
4.4. It is accordingly contended that the corrigendum
issued under Annexure-30 by showing the date of
initiation of the proceeding as 08.10.2001 cannot be held
maintainable. Rule-15(4) of the Rules reads as follows:-
"15(4). On receipt of the written statement of
defence or, if no such statement is received within the
time specified, the disciplinary authority may itself
inquire into such of the charges as are not admitted or,
if it considers it necessary so to do, appoint a Board of
Inquiry or an inquiring officer for the purpose.
Provided that if, after considering the written
statement of defence, the disciplinary authority is of the
view that the facts of the case do not justify the award
of a major penalty, it shall determine, after recording
reasons thereof, what other penalty or penalties, if any,
as specified in Clauses (i) to (v) of rule 13 should be
imposed and shall after consulting the Commission
where such consultation is necessary, pass appropriate
order."
4.5. It is accordingly contended that the change made to
the initiation of the proceeding as 08.10.2001 in place of
08.09.2001 issued under Annexure-30 is not sustainable
// 4 //
in the eye of law and the Appellate Authority be directed to
dispose of the appeal so filed by the petitioner under
Annexure-25 in accordance with law.
5. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the BDA-Opp.
Party No.2 on the other hand made his submission basing
on the affidavit filed by him. It is contended that prior to
initiation of the proceeding, petitioner was issued with the
show-cause for his alleged irregularities on 01.08.2001.
Reply filed by the petitioner to the show-cause, when was
not found satisfactory, the Proceeding in question was
initiated under Annexure-1, but with a wrong date i.e.
08.09.2001 in place of 08.10.2001.
5.1. It is contended that since prior to initiation of the
proceeding, petitioner was issued with the show-cause
and on consideration of the reply filed, the proceeding was
initiated with a wrong date, no illegality or irregularity can
be found with the issuance of the impugned corrigendum,
so issued on 20.01.2021 under Annexure-30.
6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and
considering the submissions made, this Court finds that
the proceeding in question was initiated against the
petitioner vide Proceeding No.5693 dated 08.09.2001
under Annexure-1. The said proceeding was finally
disposed of vide order dated 11.05.2006 under Annexure-
24 and in the said order, proceeding date was also
indicated as 08.09.2001. Petitioner filed an appeal against
// 5 //
such order of punishment under Annexure-25. But
without disposing the appeal, when the impugned
corrigendum was issued by holding that the date of
initiation is 08.10.2001 and not 08.09.2001, the present
Writ Petition was filed.
6.1. This Court considering the submission made, is of
the view that since the proceeding was initiated with the
date 08.09.2001 and such a date was indicated in the
order of punishment so passed by the Disciplinary
Authority while disposing the Proceeding under Annexure-
24, the date of initiation cannot be taken as 08.10.2001.
Not only that if the date of initiation of the proceeding will
be taken as 08.10.2021, the enquiry officer could not have
been appointed vide order under Annexure-2 on the same
date and prior to receipt of the written statement of
defence from the petitioner. Therefore, the same is also not
permissible under OCS(CCA) Rules, 1962.
6.2. Therefore, this Court is inclined to quash the
impugned corrigendum dated 20.01.2021, so issued
under Annexure-30, so far as it relates to taking the date
of initiation of the proceeding as 08.10.2001. While
quashing the said corrigendum, this Court directs the
Appellate Authority to dispose of the appeal, so filed by the
petitioner under Annexure-25, if it has not yet been
disposed of within a period of 2 (two) months from the
date of receipt of this order.
// 6 //
7. The Writ Petition stands disposed of accordingly.
(Biraja Prasanna Satapathy)
Judge
Basudev
Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack
