[Cites 0, Cited by 0]
Orissa High Court
Laxmidhar Majhi vs State Of Odisha And on 12 March, 2026
Author: Biraja Prasanna Satapathy
Bench: Biraja Prasanna Satapathy
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
W.P.(C) No.19064 of 2024
Laxmidhar Majhi .... Petitioner
Mr. S. Mallik, Adv.
-versus-
State of Odisha and
Another .... Opp. Parties
Mr. S. Das, ASC
CORAM:
JUSTICE BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY
Order ORDER
No 12.03.2026
04. 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
with the following prayer:-
"Under the aforesaid facts and
circumstance the petitioner humbly prays that this
Hon'ble court may graciously be pleased to
1.
Quash the Charge Memo dated
18,12.2020 as at Annexure-1, the Enquiring
Report dt. 15.7.2021 attached to Annexure-4 and
the order of punishment dt.20.7.24 as at
Annexure-8.
2. Direct/Order that the pension and
gratuity amount shall be paid to the petitioner in
full with 12% interest on gratuity and arrear
amount of pension.
// 2 //
3. Pass such other order(s)/direction(s) as
may be deemed fit and proper in the bonafide
interest of justice."
4. While assailing the initiation of the impugned proceeding
vide Memorandum dtd.18.12.2020 under Annexure-1 and so
also the order of punishment passed on 20.07.2024 under
Annexure-8, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that
since the proceeding was initiated just prior to 12(twelve) days
of the retirement of the petitioner in respect of an event of the
year 2009-10 & 2010-11, such a proceeding is not
maintainable in the eye of law.
4.1. It is also contended that in the said proceeding after
filing of the written statement of defence, the Enquiry
Officer so appointed caused the Enquiry of the proceeding
on the charges as framed. It is further contended that in
the proceeding though various documents were required
to be proved through the witnesses, but the concerned
witnesses never appeared nor the documents in support of
the charges were also proved.
4.2. However, in absence of examination of the
prosecution witnesses and proof of the documents in
support of the charges through such witnesses, the
Enquiry Officer submitted the report on 15.07.2021 by
holding the petitioner guilty of the charges, basing on
which 1st show-cause was issued to the petitioner on
05.08.2021 under Annexure-4.
4.3. Even though petitioner submitted his representation
against the enquiry report, but without proper
// 3 //
appreciation, the 2nd show-cause notice was issued on
26.04.2024 by proposing the following punishment:-
"1. His entire gratuity may be withheld permanently.
2. 30% of his pension may be withheld permanently."
4.4. It is further contended that even though petitioner
filed a detailed representation against the proposed
penalty under Annexure-7, but without taking into
account the representation so made and the irregularities
committed by the Enquiry Officer in course of enquiry,
while disposing the proceeding vide the impugned order
dated 20.07.2024, petitioner was imposed with the
following punishment:-
"1. His entire gratuity may be withheld permanently.
2. 30% of his pension may be withheld permanently."
4.5. Learned counsel for the petitioner taking this Court
to the Enquiry Report available under Annexure-4,
contended that no witness were examined in support of
the charges and the documents relied on by the
prosecution in support of the charges were never proved
during course of the enquiry. Petitioner was never also
given an opportunity to examine his witnesses in support
of his stand. But basing on the enquiry report so
submitted by the Enquiry Officer on 15.07.2021, the
proceeding was disposed of with imposition of the
punishment vide the impugned order dated 20.07.2024
under Annexure-8.
// 4 //
4.6. Making all these submissions, learned counsel for
the petitioner contended that the impugned order is not
sustainable in the eye of law and requires interference of
this Court.
5. A counter affidavit has been filed by Opp. Party No.1
justifying the initiation of the proceeding as well as order
of punishment. Learned Addl. Standing Counsel
contended that, since after filing the written statement of
defence, the enquiry officer submitted the report under
Annexure-4 by holding the petitioner guilty of the charges
and the proceeding thereafter was concluded in
accordance with law and no allegation has been made that
any statutory provision was violated nor petitioner was
given opportunity of hearing, no illegality or irregularity
can be found with the impugned order.
5.1. It is also contended that taking into account the
nature of charges framed against the petitioner in the
proceeding in question, no illegality or irregularity can be
found with the impugned order and so also the initiation
of the proceeding, and the Writ Petition is liable for
dismissal.
6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and
considering the submission made, this Court finds that
prior to retirement of the petitioner on 31.12.2020, the
proceeding in question was initiated vide Memorandum
dated 18.12.2020 under Annexure-1. This Court after
going through the memorandum, finds that various
// 5 //
charges were framed against the petitioner and in support
of the charges, various documents were required to be
proved by the prosecution witnesses.
6.1. However, as found from the Enquiry Report available
under Annexure-4, no witness was ever examined by the
Enquiry Officer and no documents in support of the
charges were also proved. In absence of the same, the
Enquiry Officer held the petitioner guilty of the charges
while submitting the enquiry report on 15.07.2021.
Petitioner was also not given an opportunity to examine
his witnesses if any in support of his stand so taken in the
written statement of defence.
6.2. Basing on such enquiry report, the proceeding was
concluded with imposition of the punishment vide the
impugned order dated 20.07.2024 under Annexure-8. This
Court taking into account the fact that the proceeding was
initiated prior to retirement of the petitioner, is of the view
that the proceeding is very much maintainable and
grounds taken by the petitioner in that regard is not
acceptable.
6.3. However, since the charges in the proceeding was
never proved with due examination of the witnesses nor
the documents in support of the charges were ever proved
and petitioner was never given an opportunity to lead his
evidence, this Court is of the view that basing on such a
faulty enquiry report, proceeding could not have been
// 6 //
disposed of with passing of the impugned order on dated
20.07.2024 under Annexure-8.
6.4. In view of such material irregularities which are
apparent on the face of the impugned order as well as in
the enquiry report, this Court is inclined to quash order
dated 20.07.2024, so passed by Opp. Party No.1 under
Annexure-8. While quashing the said order, this Court
remits the matter to Opp. Party No.1 to take up the
proceeding from the stage of enquiry. If the enquiry officer
so appointed is no more available, a fresh enquiry officer
be appointed and the proceeding be concluded in
accordance with law taking into account the fact that
petitioner has retired since 31.12.2020.
6.5. This Court accordingly directs Opp. Party No.1 to
take all possible step for disposal of the proceeding in
accordance with law as expeditiously as possible
preferably by the end of this year. Petitioner is however
directed to co-operate at every stage of the proceeding and
he will not pray for any adjournment at any point of time.
7. The Writ Petition stands disposed of accordingly.
(Biraja Prasanna Satapathy)
Judge
Basudev
Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack
Date: 16-Mar-2026 11:49:27
