Shishir Kumar Das vs Union Of India & Ors. ..... Opposite ...
2026 Latest Caselaw 975 Ori

Orissa High Court

Shishir Kumar Das vs Union Of India & Ors. ..... Opposite ... on 4 February, 2026

Author: Biraja Prasanna Satapathy

Bench: Biraja Prasanna Satapathy

     IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
                  WP(C) No. 36675 of 2022
Shishir Kumar Das             .....       Petitioner
                                                     Mr. S.K. Mishra, Sr. Advocate
                                                            along with
                                                        Mr. J. Pradhan, Advocate
                                   -versus-
Union of India & Ors.                 .....              Opposite Parties
                                                         Mr. P.K. Parhi, DSGI
                                                              along with
                                                        Mr. A. Mohanty, CGC


                    CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY
                     ORDER

04.02.2026

1. This matter is taken up through hybrid mode.

2. Additional affidavit filed by the Union of India with service of copy on the learned Sr. Counsel appearing for the Petitioner in Court be kept in record.

3. Heard Mr. S.K. Mishra, learned Sr. Counsel appearing for the Petitioner along with Mr. J. Pradhan, learned counsel and Mr. P.K. Parhi, learned DSGI appearing for the Opp. Parties along with Mr. A. Mohanty, learned CGC.

4. The present writ petition has been filed inter alia with the following prayer:-

"It is, therefore prayed that this Hon'ble Court may graciously be pleased to admit this writ application, issue notice to the Opp. Parties, call for the relevant records and after hearing the counsel for the parties, the impugned order dated 13.10.2022 and Letter dated

15.10.202 under Annexures-9 series be quashed and consequently may be reinstated in his service;

And may further be pleased to pass such other further order/orders as this Hon'ble Court deems just, equitable and proper in the facts and circumstances of the present case;

And for this act of kindness, the Petitioner shall as in duty bound ever pray."

5. Learned Sr. Counsel appearing for the Petitioner contended that in the proceeding initiated against the Petitioner vide Memorandum dtd.16.08.2022 under Annexure-5, he was imposed with the punishment by the disciplinary authority-Opp. Party No. 4. Vide the said order Petitioner was imposed with the punishment of withholding of his next annual increment for 3 years with cumulative effect under power schedule- III of RPF Rules, 1987.

5.1. It is contended that Petitioner when preferred an appeal against such order of punishment before the appellate authority on 23.11.2021 so available under Annexure-L to the additional affidavit filed in Court today, the appellate authority issued a show-cause on 23.02.2022 under Annexure-M to the additional affidavit, proposing therein to enhance the punishment in terms of the provisions contained under Rule 217.3 of the RPF Rules, 1987.

5.2. It is contended that Petitioner since could not file his reply to the show-cause, the appellate authority enhanced the punishment with passing of order dtd.02.08.2022 under Annexure-I to the counter affidavit, and while passing the said order, the appellate authority exercised the power conferred under Rule 219.4 of the RPF Rules, 1987 and as per the order of the competent authority. The appellate authority while enhancing the punishment, imposed

the punishment of withholding of his next annual increment for a further period of one year with cumulative effect.

5.3. Learned Sr. Counsel appearing for the Petitioner vehemently contended that since the appellate authority in exercise of the power conferred under Rule 219.4 of the Rules, enhanced the punishment so passed by the disciplinary authority, vide the impugned order dtd.13.10.2022 so communicated on 15.10.2022 under Annexure-9 sereis, the revisional authority-Opp. Party No. 2 could not have exercised the self-same power under Rule 219.4 of the Rules and while exercising such power, could not have passed an order of compulsory retirement from service with immediate effect.

5.4. It is contended that since the appellate authority enhanced the punishment by exercising the power conferred under Rule 219.4 of the Rules, the revisional authority is not competent to exercise the said power once again by enhancing the punishment to a punishment of compulsory retirement.

5.5. It is also contended that after enhancement of the punishment by the appellate authority vide order under Annexure-I to the counter affidavit, Petitioner though was served with a notice by the appellate authority on 17.08.2022 with a direction to file his reply to such proposed enhanced punishment, but since Petitioner during the relevant period was in custody w.e.f.10.08.2022 to 24.08.2022, he could not file his reply to the show-cause so issued by the revisional authority-Opp. Party No. 2.

5.6. It is contended that revisional authority without permitting the Petitioner to file his reply to the show-cause by giving another opportunity, passed the impugned order under Annexure-9 by

enhancing the punishment to a punishment of compulsory retirement. Making all these submissions, learned Sr. Counsel appearing for the Petitioner contended that order of compulsory retirement passed by the revisional authority-Opp. Party No. 2 vide order dtd.13.10.2022 under Annexure-9 series is not sustainable in the eye of law.

6. Mr. P.K. Parhi, learned DSGI appearing for the Opp. Parties along with Mr. A. Mohanty, learned CGC made his submission basing on the stand taken in the counter affidavit and the additional affidavit filed in Court today. It is contended that in the proceeding initiated against the Petitioner vide Memorandum dtd.31.05.2021 under Annexure-10, Petitioner was imposed with the punishment by the disciplinary authority-Opp. Party No. 4 vide order dtd.02.11.2021 under Annexure-H to the counter affidavit. Petitioner when preferred an appeal against such order of punishment, the appellate authority issued the notice on 24.02.2022 vide Annexure-M, in terms of the provisions contained under Rule 217.3 of the Rules. Rule 217.3 of the Rules reads as follows:-

"217.3. In the case of an appeal against an order imposing any of the punishments specified in Rules 148 or 149 or enhancing any penalty imposed under the said rules the appellate authority shall consider: -

a) whether the procedure prescribed in these rules has been complied with, and if not, whether such non-

compliance has resulted in violation of any constitutional provisions or in miscarriage of justice;

(b) whether the findings are warranted and based on evidence on record; and

(c) whether the punishment or the enhanced punishment imposed is adequate or inadequate or severe and pass speaking orders for-

(i) setting aside, confirming, reducing or enhancing the punishment, or

(ii) remitting the case to the authority which imposed or enhanced the punishment or to any other authority with such directions as it may deem fit in the circumstances of the case:

Provided that-

(i) no order imposing an enhanced punishment shall be passed unless the appellant is given an opportunity of making any representation which he may wish to make against such enhanced punishment; and

(ii) if the enhanced punishment, which the appellate authority proposes to impose, is one of the punishments specified in clauses (a) to (d) of Rule 148.2 and an inquiry under Rule 153 has not already been held in the case, the appellate authority shall, subject to the provisions of Rule 153 itself hold such inquiry or direct that such inquiry be held and thereafter on a consideration of the proceedings of such inquiry pass such orders as it may deem fit."

6.1. It is contended that on the face of such notice issued by the appellate authority proposing therein to enhance the punishment, Petitioner never filed his reply. Accordingly, the appellate authority disposed of the appeal vide order dtd.02.08.2022 under Annexure-I and vide the said order the appellate authority enhanced the punishment by another one year with cumulative effect.

6.2. Learned DSGI vehemently contended that since prior to enhancing the punishment, Petitioner was issued with the show- cause in terms of the provisions contained under Rule 217.3 of the Rules, even though the order under Annexure-I is stated to have been passed in exercise of the power conferred under Rule 219.4 of the Rules, it cannot come to the rescue of the Petitioner.

6.3. It is contended that the order passed by the appellate authority under Annexure-I to the counter affidavit was never assailed by the Petitioner. But taking recourse to the provisions contained under Rule 219.4 of the Rules, the revisional authority when proposed to enhance the punishment, a show-cause was issued to the Petitioner on 17.08.2022. Petitioner as usual when did not file his reply to the show-cause, the revisional authority enhanced the punishment by passing the impugned order under Annexure-9 on 13.10.2022 and vide the said order Petitioner was given compulsory retirement from service.

6.4. It is contended that since the appellate authority on the face of the show-cause issued as per Rule 217.3 under Annexure-M, wrongly mentioned to have exercised the power under Rule 219.4 in its order under Annexure-I, the same cannot be held to be an order passed under the said provision and for the inadvertent wrong committed by the appellate authority with regard to reflection of a wrong provision of law, no advantage can be taken by the Petitioner. It is accordingly contended that since the appellate authority enhanced the punishment taking recourse to the provisions contained under Rule 217.3 and thereafter the revisional authority by taking recourse to the provisions contained under Rule 219.4 of the Rules, which is permissible, enhanced the punishment, no illegality or irregularity can be found with the impugned order passed by the revisional authority under Annxure-9.

7. Having heard learned counsel appearing for the Parties and considering the submissions made, this Court finds that Petitioner was proceeded with in the proceeding initiated vide Memorandum dtd.31.05.2021 under Annexure-10. In the said proceeding the

disciplinary authority-Opp. Party No. 4 while disposing the proceeding, imposed the punishment vide order dtd.02.11.2021 under Annexure-H. Petitioner challenging the said order of punishment, preferred an appeal on 23.11.2021 under Annexure-M so enclosed to the additional affidavit.

7.1. As found, after receipt of the appeal, the appellate authority issued a show-cause on 24.02.2022 under Annexure-M and while issuing the said show-cause in terms of the provisions contained under Rule 217.3, the appellate authority proposed to enhance the punishment. The appellate authority thereafter passed the order by enhancing the punishment vide order dtd.02.08.2022 under Annexure-1. But as found, the appellate authority passed such an order in exercise of the power conferred under Rule 219.4 of the Rules and as per the order of the competent authority. But it is not disputed that the appellate authority prior to passing of the said order, had issued the show-cause in exercise of his power conferred Rule 217.3 of the Rules. Therefore, mentioning of a wrong provision of law in the impugned order cannot be taken advantage of by the Petitioner.

7.2. However, this Court finds that the revisional authority when proposed to enhance the punishment in exercise of the power conferred under Rule 219.4 and Petitioner was issued with a show- cause on 17.08.2022, but during the relevant time Petitioner was in custody for the period from 10.08.2022 to 24.08.2022. Hence it is the view of this Court that the revisional authority should have permitted the Petitioner to file his reply to the show-cause as the revisional authority proposed to give compulsory retirement to the Petitioner, which is in the nature of a major punishment. Since the

revisional authority has passed the impugned order in absence of any reply to the show-cause so issued on 17.08.2022 and kowing fully well that Petitioner was in custody, this Court while disposing the writ petition with quashing of the order under Annexure-9 dtd.13.10.2022, permits the Petitioner to file his reply to the show- cause against the proposed punishment before Opp. Party No. 2 on or before 28th February, 2026. On such filing of the reply to the show-cause, the revisional authority shall take a lawful decision on the same with passing of a fresh order in accordance with law, in which this Court expresses no opinion.

8. The writ petition accordingly stands disposed of with the aforesaid observation and direction.

(BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY) Judge Sneha

Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack