The Petitioner, Junior Assistant under the
Opposite Party Cuttack Development Authority has
filed the writ application assailing the order of
punishment dtd. 10.02.2012 passed by the Vice
Chairman, Cuttack Development Authority (Opp.
Party No.3) under Annexure-16 and the
consequential order passed by the Appellate
Authority dtd. 03.07.2014 under Annexure-20, with a
further prayer to regularize his entire service period
and to grant him all consequential service and
financial benefits.
The prayer in the writ petition is culled out hereunder
for reference:-
"Under the above circumstances, it is therefore
humbly prayed that this Hon‟ble Court be
graciously pleased to quash the order of
punishment imposed on the petitioner dated
10.2.2012 under Annexure-16 and the
consequential order of the appellate authority
communicated on 3.7.2014 under Annexure-
And further the Hon‟ble Court be pleased to
direct the opp. parties to regularize the
services of the petitioner and to grant him the
consequential service and financial benefits.
And/or pass any other appropriate writ/writs,
direction/ directions, order/orders in the
fitness of the case;
xxx xxx xxx
1. The uncontroverted facts run thus:-
In the year 1990, the Petitioner was appointed
as Junior Assistant under the Cuttack Development
Authority (CDA) on DLR basis and his services were
regularized on 14.12.1994.
1-A. The Petitioner was working as Bench Clerk to
the Secretary, CDA with effect from dt.01.03.2005.
While working as such, it is alleged that he did not
put up 205 number of files relating to U.C. cases
(unauthorized construction) files before the Secretary
on the scheduled dates during the year 2005 and
2006. And, it is further alleged that the Petitioner also
did not take steps to put up 1315 numbers of
unauthorized construction cases filed before the
Secretary, which were pending since 1984 to 2005,
during his period of working as Bench Clerk.
The Petitioner was placed under suspension
vide Office Order No.9250 dated 24.04.2007
(Annexure-1).
1-B. Alleging these irregularities and negligence in
duty, disobedience of orders and „misconduct‟, a
memorandum of charges along with imputations
dated 02.06.2007 at Annexure-2 was served on the
Petitioner, and by order dated 12.09.2007 at
Annexure-6, the Enquiry Officer was appointed for
conducting enquiry into the charges at Annexure-2.
It is submitted that the proceeding was initiated
against the Petitioner under Rule 15(9)1 of the Orissa
Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal)
Rules, 1962.
1-C. Mr. Sameer Ku. Das, learned counsel states
that the Petitioner was neither supplied with the
documents nor was he allowed to inspect the files
which, form the basis of the imputation of charges,
for which the Petitioner had to approach this Court in
W.P.(C) No.8076 of 2008 and W.P.(C) No.18806 of
2008. And, subsequently he was only allowed to
peruse the record pursuant to the orders passed by
this Court
1-D. After inspecting the records, the Petitioner filed
his statement of defence on 09.04.2010 at Annexure-
12, denying all the charges levelled against him.
In the statement of defence, the Petitioner
pleaded that the allegation levelled against him was
15. Procedure for imposing Major Penalties - (1) to (8). xxx xxx xxx
(9) The disciplinary authority shall, if it is not the inquiring authority, consider
the record of the inquiry and record its findings on each charge.
that he had not put up the files before the Secretary
for disposal of the case. But the duties of the Bench
Clerk are only to put up those files before the
Presiding Officer (Secretary). Whereas, the dates are
to be fixed by the Presiding Officer himself. Despite
his placing all the files before the Secretary to fix the
dates of hearing, the Secretary, who happens to be
the Presiding Officer, did not fix any date, for which
the files could not roll, and he has no laches as
alleged, nor has he committed any misconduct or
negligence in duty.
1-E. After enquiry, the Enquiry Officer submitted his
report dated 05.10.2010 at Annexure-13, exonerating
the Petitioner from the charges of negligence in duty,
disobedience of orders and misconduct.
1-F. On 21.07.2011, by Annexure-14, a show cause
notice was issued by the disciplinary authority
proposing to impose the following punishment;
"xxx xxx xxx
1. He is warned not to repeat such mistake.
2. One increment is stopped with cumulative
effect
3. The period of suspension be treated as
leave due.
xxx xxx xxx"
1-G. The reason given for differing from the finding
of the Enquiry Officer was that, in a similar case, one
Smt. Anjana Sahoo had already been punished, and
therefore, the Petitioner was also liable to be
punished.
1-H. The Petitioner submitted his reply by
communication dated 26.07.2011 at Annexure-15.
Notwithstanding such reply, by impugned Office
Order dated 10.02.2012 at Annexure-16, the
following punishment was imposed;
"xxx xxx xxx
1. He is warned not to repeat such mistake.
2. One increment is stopped with cumulative
effect,
3. The period of suspension be treated as
leave due.
xxx xxx xxx"
Being aggrieved by the order of punishment at
Annexure-16, the Petitioner preferred an appeal,
which was rejected allegedly by a non-speaking order
vide impugned order dated 03.07.2014 at Annexure-
20.
2. Assailing the order of punishment at Annexure-
16 and the rejection order passed by the appellate
authority at Annexure-20, the present writ application
has been filed inter alia on the ground that the
charges levelled against him were baseless, for which
he was rightly exonerated by the Enquiry Officer.
Thus, the order of punishment is bad and the reason
stated by the disciplinary authority while differing
from the Enquiry Officer, as borne out from the show
cause dated 21.07.2011 at Annexure-14, is
untenable, and further the order at Annexure-20 is
assailed on the ground that the same is a non-
speaking order as such not sustainable in law.
3. To substantiate such submission, learned
counsel for the Petitioner has relied upon the
following judgments:
i. Punjab National Bank v. Kunj Behari
Misra (Chief personnel)2
ii. Hrudananda Behera v. State of Odisha3
iii. Manoranjan Mohapatra v. State of
Odisha and Others4
iv. State of U.P. v. Ram Prakash Singh5
4. In reply to the aforesaid averments of the
Petitioner, the Opp. Parties have filed a counter
Punjab National Bank v. Kunj Behari Misra (Chief personnel), (1998) 7 SCC
84; AIR 1998 SC 2713
Hrudananda Behera v. State of Odisha, Judgment dated 16.12.2024 passed
by this Court in W.P.(C) No.10910 of 2021
Manoranjan Mohapatra v. State of Odisha, Judgment dated 30.05.2025
passed by this Court in W.P.(C) (OAC) No.2178 of 2016
State of U.P. v. Ram Prakash Singh, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 891
affidavit, justifying the imposition of punishment as
well as the appellate order confirming such
punishment.
5. It is urged by learned Senior Counsel, Mr. D.
Mohapatra that the enquiry report is not sacrosanct
and the disciplinary authority is to consider all the
materials on record and pass the final verdict. It is
further submitted that there is no bar to differ from
the findings and recommendation of the Enquiry
Officer, if circumstances so demand. In view of the
materials on record, the order of punishment at
Annexure-16 has been rightly passed.
6. While refuting the allegation that the Appellate
Authority, while passing the order at Annexure-20,
did not apply his mind, it is stated that the Appellate
Authority considered the gravity of the case in
consonance with the grounds raised in the appeal
memo and passed the order, being satisfied that the
employee failed to maintain absolute integrity and
thereby committed gross misconduct and failed to
discharge his duties properly, and therefore rejection
of the appeal does not merit interference.
7. It is submitted with vehemence in the light of
the evidence against the delinquent was duly
considered by the Disciplinary Authority and the
Appellate Authority found the Petitioner guilty have
rightly decided the quantum of penalty in such
backdrop. Hence, the prayer of the Petitioner merits
no consideration and the writ application is liable to
be dismissed.
8. It is brought to the notice of this Court that in
the meanwhile the Petitioner was transferred on
deputation to Sambalpur Development Authority on
dt.14.02.2019 and retired from service on
dt.31.03.2024, and the retirement benefits payable is
under process.
9. On these competing submissions, this Court is
called upon to adjudicate whether the impugned
orders at Annexure-16 and 20, imposing punishment
on the Petitioner and affirmative thereof by rejection
of appeal are sustainable in law.
10. Mr. Das, learned Counsel appearing for the
Petitioner submitted referring to Rule-2486 of GRCO
(Civil) that the Secretary being the presiding officer
having not fixed any date therein to further put up
the matter, the Petitioner cannot be penalized for the
same and cannot be said to have acted negligently or
disobedience of any order.
248. Writing and signing order sheet- The order-sheet may be written by
an officer of the Court at the dictation of the Presiding Judge, who, however,
shall sign and be responsible for the correctness of the entries in it.
10-A. Further, while relying upon the decision of
co-ordinate bench of this Court in Manoranjan
Mohapatra (supra)4, it is contended that the
reasoning given in the show cause at Annexure-14
that a similarly circumstanced Bench Clerk, namely
Anjana Sahoo, has been punished is not in
consonance with Rule 15(9)1 of the Orissa Civil
Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules,
1962 and is ex facie illegal, and as such, the
consequential order passed by the Appellate Authority
dated 03.07.2014 under Annexure-20, being a non-
reasoned one, merits interference.
11. On a conspectus of materials on record,
admittedly in the show cause dated 21.07.2011, the
disciplinary authority has differed from the Enquiry
Officer on the ground that in another case of similar
nature, where Smt. Anjana Sahoo, Bench Clerk, was
charge-sheeted with similar charges, she has been
punished; hence, similar punishment should be given.
For convenience of reference the show cause
dated 21.07.2011 at Annexure-14 is culled out
hereunder:-
12. In this regard, this Court respectfully refers to
the following Judgments of the Apex Court;
i. Ram Kishan v. Union of India7
ii. Yoginath D. Bagde v. State of
Maharashtra8
12-A. In the case of Ram Kishan (Supra)7, the
Apex Court has held as under:-
"xxx xxx xxx
Ram Kishan v. Union of India, (1995) 6 SCC 157
Yoginath D. Bagde v. State of Maharashtra , (1999) 7 SCC 739
The next question is whether the show
cause notice is valid in law. It is true, as
rightly contended by the counsel for the
appellant, that the show cause notice does
not indicate the reasons on the basis of
which the disciplinary authority proposed to
disagree with the conclusions reached by
the inquiry officer. The purpose of the
show cause notice, in case of
disagreement with the findings of the
enquiry officer, is to enable the
delinquent to show that the
disciplinary authority is persuaded not
to disagree with the conclusions
reached by the inquiry officer for the
reasons given in the inquiry report or
he may offer additional reasons in
support of the finding by the inquiry
officer. In that situation, unless the
disciplinary authority gives specific reasons
in the show cause on the basis of which the
findings of the inquiry officer in that behalf
is based, it would be difficult for the
delinquent to satisfactorily give reasons to
pursuade the disciplinary authority to agree
with the conclusions reached by the inquiry
officer. In the absence of any ground or
reason in the show cause notice it amounts
to an empty formality which would cause
grave prejudice to the delinquent officer
and would result in injustice to him. The
mere fact that in the final order some
reasons have been given to disagree with
the conclusions reached by the disciplinary
authority cannot cure the defect.
xxx xxx xxx "
(Emphasized)
12-B. In the case of Yoginath D. Badge (Supra)8,
the Apex Court held thus;
"xxx xxx xxx
28. ......it is open to the disciplinary
authority either to agree with the findings
recorded by the enquiring authority or
disagree with those findings. If it does not
agree with the findings of the enquiring
authority, it may record its own findings.
Where the enquiring authority has found
the delinquent officer guilty of the charges
framed against him and the disciplinary
authority agrees with those findings, there
would arise no difficulty. So also, if the
enquiring authority has held the charges
proved, but the disciplinary authority
disagrees and records a finding that the
charges were not established, there would
arise no difficulty. Difficulties have arisen in
all those cases in which the enquiring
authority has recorded a positive finding
that the charges were not established and
the delinquent officer was recommended to
be exonerated, but the disciplinary
authority disagreed with those findings and
recorded its own findings that the charges
were established and the delinquent officer
was liable to be punished. This difficulty
relates to the question of giving an
opportunity of hearing to the delinquent
officer at that stage. Such an opportunity
may either be provided specifically by the
rules made under Article 309 of the
Constitution or the disciplinary authority
may, of its own, provide such an
opportunity. Where the rules are in this
regard silent and the disciplinary authority
also does not give an opportunity of hearing
to the delinquent officer and records
findings different from those of the
enquiring authority that the charges were
established, "an opportunity of hearing"
may have to be read into the rule by
which the procedure for dealing with
the enquiring authority's report is
provided principally because it would
be contrary to the principles of natural
justice if a delinquent officer, who has
already been held to be "not guilty" by
the enquiring authority, is found
"guilty" without being afforded an
opportunity of hearing on the basis of
the same evidence and material on
which a finding of "not guilty" has
already been recorded.
xxx xxx xxx"
(Emphasized)
It is apt to note that the Co-ordinate Bench of
this Court in Manoranjan Mohapatra (supra)4 has
reiterated the principles laid down in the
aforementioned judgments.
13. It is not disputed by the Opposite Parties that
the Petitioner was never given an opportunity to
examine as to whether his case is similarly
circumstanced with that of Anjana Sahoo or not. And,
the order of punishment qua Anjana Sahoo was never
urged before the Enquiry Officer. The enquiry report
exonerating the Petitioner is a well-reasoned one. The
show cause notice, therefore, amounts to an empty
formality as the provisions of Rule 15(10)(i)(b)9 of
the Orissa Civil Services (Classification, Control and
Appeal) Rules, 1962 ex-facie have not been complied
with. It appears that the Disciplinary Authority had
already decided what punishment to impose while
issuing this show cause notice.
Thus, the sole reason stated in Annexure-14,
citing punishment awarded to Anjana Sahoo for
differing from the Enquiry Officer when the charges
15. Procedure for imposing Major Penalties -(1) to (9).xxx xxx xxx
10) (i) (a)xxx xxx xxx
(b) On receipt of the representation referred to in sub-clause (a) if the
disciplinary authority having regard to the findings on the charges, is of the
opinion that any of the penalties specified in clauses (vi) to (ix) of rule 13
should be imposed, he shall furnish to the delinquent Government servant a
statement of its findings along with brief reasons for disagreement, if any, with
the findings of the inquiring officer and give him a notice by registered post or
otherwise stating the penalty proposed to be imposed on him and calling upon
him to submit within a specified time such representation as he may wish to
make against the proposed penalty :
Provided that in every case in which it is necessary to consult the
Commission under the provision of the Constitution of India and the Orissa
Public Service Commission (Limitation of Functions) Regulation, 1989, the
record of inquiry together with copies of the notices given under sub-clauses
(a) and (b) and the representations, if any, received in response thereto within
the specified time shall be forwarded by the disciplinary authority to the
Commission for its advice.
are not proved, is prima facie not tenable since it is
de hors the basic fundamentals of natural justice and
the law and procedure governing disciplinary
proceedings. The consequential order of punishment
being illegal cannot be allowed to stand.
14. For reasons stated above, the order dated
10.02.2012 at Annexure-16 is hereby quashed.
15. Now coming to order passed by the Appellate
authority at Annexure-20, on a bare perusal it can be
seen that without adverting to the contentions of the
appellant therein the appeal was rejected merely
observing that "After going through the relevant
records, enquiry report and para-wise comments, the
Hon'ble Chairman, CDA has been pleased to pass the
following order that "Being a Development Authority
employee, he has failed to maintain absolute
integrity, committed gross misconduct and failed to
discharge his duty properly. Hence the appeal of Sri
Sharat Kumar Mohanty, Sr. Asst. for exoneration of
the above order of penalty merits no consideration
and rejected".
16. Law is no more res integra that reasons are the
heart and soul of an order, and by passing an order
without assigning any reason, authorities act like
"inscrutable faces of sphinx."
The said proposition has been recognized and
reiterated by the Apex Court in a catena of
judgments, and it has been held that "reason is the
heartbeat of every conclusion and without the same it
becomes lifeless," and a non-speaking order is
incongruous with judicial or quasi-judicial
performance. [Ref: Raj Kishore Jha v. State of
Bihar10]
17. Keeping in view the law in vogue, this Court is
constrained to observe that the authority just went
through the motions while evaluating the materials
on record. And, the mandate of law was followed in
its complete breach by stating that the order has
been passed after going through the record when the
reasoning and analysis of the record are
conspicuously absent and the contentions raised by
the person aggrieved were not dealt with. Thus, the
impugned appellate order at Annexure-20, being a
non-speaking order, is hereby quashed.
18. In view of the above mentioned facts and
circumstances, the writ application is allowed. The
impugned order of punishment at Annexure-16 and
order passed by the Appellate Authority at Annexure-
20 are quashed.
Raj Kishore Jha v. State of Bihar, (2003) 11 SCC 519
19. Since the Petitioner has retired in the
meanwhile and keeping in view his age especially
since the writ petition is pending since 2014, this
Court is of the considered view that it would not be
prudent to follow the usual norm, at this stage, to
remit the matter to the appellate/disciplinary
authority.
20. Accordingly, it is directed that the Petitioner
shall be entitled to get all consequential benefits
including the salary for the period of suspension as
the same shall be treated as to be spent on duty and
the retiral and other financial benefits be
compounded accordingly granted to the Petitioner
within a period of three months hence deducting the
amount, if any, paid.
21. The writ petition accordingly stands disposed of.
Costs made easy.
(V. Narasingh)
Judge
Orissa High Court, Cuttack,
Dated the 13th March. 2026/Ayesha
Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack
