Prabhat Kumar Mallik vs State Of Odisha & Others .... Opposite ...
2026 Latest Caselaw 2656 Ori

Orissa High Court

Prabhat Kumar Mallik vs State Of Odisha & Others .... Opposite ... on 19 March, 2026

Author: Biraja Prasanna Satapathy

Bench: Biraja Prasanna Satapathy

               IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

                         WP(C ) No.3720 of 2024

         Prabhat Kumar Mallik         ....              Petitioner
                                             Mr. P.K. Mohapatra,
                                                            Adv.


                                -versus-

         State of Odisha & Others     ....        Opposite Party
                                            Mr. A. Tripathy, AGA

                        COROM:
    THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY

                                 ORDER

Order                          19.03.2026
No

4. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Mode.

2. Heard learned counsel appearing for the parties.

3. The present Writ Petition has been filed inter alia challenging the order of punishment passed in a Disciplinary Proceeding so initiated vide Memorandum dt.22.09.2010 under Annexure-1, vide order dt.31.01.2022 of Opp. party No.3 under Annexure-5 and confirmed by the Appellate Authority vide Office order dt.07.11.2023 under Annexure-7 of Opp. party No.2.

// 2 //

4. While assailing the impugned order of punishment so passed under Anenxure-5, confirmed vide order under Annexure-7, learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner contended that in the said proceeding, after submission of the inquiry report by the Inquiry Officer vide letter dt.22.12.2020, Petitioner was straightaway issued with the 2nd show-cause by proposing the punishment vide show-cause notice dt.08.04.2021 under Annexure-3.

4.1 Learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner contended that since the proceeding was initiated under Rule-15 of the OCS (CC& A) Rules, 1962 (in short, "Rules"), after receipt of the inquiry report, Petitioner in terms of the provisions contained under Rule-15(10)(i)(a) of the Rules, was required to be issued with the 1st show-cause along with the inquiry report. But since in the instant case, without issuing the 1st show-cause along with the inquiry report, the Disciplinary authority-Opp. party No.3 straightaway issued the 2nd show-cause by proposing the punishment, the same amounts to non-compliance of the provisions contained under Rule-15(10)(i)(a) of the Rules and accordingly basing

// 3 //

on such 2nd show-cause, no order of punishment could have been imposed vide the impugned order under Annexure-5, confirmed by the Appellate Authority vide order under Annexure-7. Rule 15(10)(i)(a) of the Rules reads as follows:

15(10)(i)(a) - If the inquiring officer is not the disciplinary authority shall furnish to the delinquent Government servant a copy of the inquiring officer and give him notice by registered post or otherwise calling upon him to submit within a period of fifteen days such representation as he may wish to make against finding of the Inquiring Authority.

4.2. It is accordingly contended that the impugned order requires interference of this Court as statutory provisions contained under Rule 15(10)(i)(a) has not been followed. A further submission was also made that while issuing the 2nd show-cause, no disagreement note was also given which was a mandatory requirement. Rule 10(i)(b)) of the Rules reads as follows:

15(10(i)(b)- On receipt of the representation referred to in Sub-clause(a), 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 finds 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

// 4 //

him to submit within a specified time such representation as he may wish to make against the proposed penalty.

5. Mr. A. Tripathy, learned Addl. Govt. Advocate on the other hand while supporting the impugned order, made his submission basing on the stand taken in the counter affidavit, so filed. It is contended that since the Inquiry Officer found the Petitioner guilty of the charges in his report dtd.22.12.2020 and opined to treat the period of suspension as duty and held him liable to pay a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- in 60(sixty) equal instalments and stop 2(two) increments, on the face of such finding of the Inquiry Officer, Opp. Party No.3 who happens to be Disciplinary Authority, issued the 2 nd show-cause vide letter dt.8.4.2021 under Annexure- 3 proposing the punishment, so proposed by the Inquiry Officer, save and except the period of suspension is concerned.

5.1. It is further contended that Petitioner without any objection filed his reply to the 2nd show- cause under Annexure-4 and after due consideration of the same, the impugned order of punishment was passed by Opp. party No.3 under Annexure-5. It is further contended that the

// 5 //

Appellate Authority after due consideration of the Appeal so filed under Annexure-6, since has confirmed the order of punishment, no illegality or irregularity can be found with the impugned order.

It is accordingly contended that since Petitioner without raising any objection to the 2nd show-cause filed his reply and on due consideration, the order of punishment has been imposed, no interference is called for.

6. Having heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and considering the submission made, this Court finds that Petitioner while in service, the Proceeding in question was initiated against him vide Memorandum dt.22.09.2010 under Annexure-1 and the said proceeding was initiated under Rule-15 of the Rules.

6.1. As found from the records, the Inquiry Officer after conducting the inquiry, submitted the report vide his letter dt.22.12.2020. After receipt of such report, Opp. Party No.3 who happens to be the Disciplinary Authority, issued the 2nd show-cause by proposing the punishment vide show cause notice dt.08.04.2021 under Anenxure-3. Opp.

// 6 //

Party No.3 thereafter disposed of the proceeding vide the impugned order dt.31.01.2022 under Annexure-5.

6.2. Since no 1st show-cause, as provided under Rule-15(10(i)(a) of the Rules, was ever issued by the Disciplinary Authority and without having a disagreement note, the 2nd show-cause notice was issued on 8.4.2021 under Annexure-3, it is the view of this Court that statutory provisions since have not been followed, while disposing the proceeding with passing of the impugned order of punishment under Annexure-5, so confirmed by the Appellate- Authority vide order under Annexure-7, impugned orders passed under Annexures-5 & 7 are not sustainable in the eye of law.

6.3. Therefore, this Court while quashing order dt.31.01.2022 so passed by Opp. Party No.3 under Annexure-5 and order dt.07.11.2023 so passed by Opp. Party No.2 under Annexure-7, remits the matter to Opp. party No.3 to re-commence the proceeding from the stage of issuance of the 1st show-cause notice, in terms of the provisions contained under Rule-15(10(i)(a) of the Rules.

// 7 //

6.4. Since the Proceeding is of the year 2010 and inquiry report has already been provided, Opp. party No.3 is directed to dispose of the Proceeding as expeditiously as possible, and in accordance with law preferably within a period of 4(four) months hence. Petitioner however is directed to cooperate for such disposal of the Proceedings.

7. The Writ Petition accordingly stands disposed of.

(Biraja Prasanna Satapathy) Judge sangita

Reason: authentication of order Location: high court of orissa, cuttack Date: 24-Mar-2026 16:37:40