Orissa High Court
Rabindranath Swain vs State Of Odisha And Ors. .... Opposite ... on 16 May, 2025
Author: S.K. Panigrahi
Bench: S.K. Panigrahi
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR
Reason: Authentication
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
Date: 29-May-2025 06:36:37
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
RVWPET No. 46 of 2025
(An application under Order 47 Rule 1 read with Section 114 and
151of Civil Procedure Code, 1908).
Rabindranath Swain .... Petitioner(s)
-versus-
State of Odisha and Ors. .... Opposite Party (s)
Advocates appeared in the case throughHybrid Mode:
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Krushna Chandra Dash, Adv.
For Opposite Party (s) : Mr. Debasish Nayak, AGA
CORAM:
DR. JUSTICE S.K. PANIGRAHI
DATE OF HEARING:-16.04.2025
DATE OF JUDGMENT:-16.05.2025
Dr. S.K. Panigrahi, J.
1. In this Review Petition, the Petitioner seeks reconsideration of the judgment dated 30.01.2025 by challenging the disciplinary penalty imposed post-retirement, alleging non-consideration of exonerating findings, procedural unfairness, and disproportionality.
I. FACTUAL MATRIX OF THE CASE:
2. The brief facts of the caseare asfollows:
Page 1 of 13 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 29-May-2025 06:36:37
(i) The petitioner is a retired Deputy Inspector General (DIG) of Prisons, Government of Odisha, who superannuated on 30.06.2019. He had an otherwise commendable service record, having received two Presidential awards during his tenure.
(ii) The core allegations pertain to procurement activities undertaken during his tenure as the Senior Superintendent of Circle Jail, Choudwar in October 2018. A supplementary audit conducted in September 2021, after his retirement, flagged the following:
a) Fragmentation of 18 procurement orders, cumulatively valued at Rs. 17,46,174, allegedly to circumvent financial approval thresholds.
b) Awarding all contracts to a single vendor (DebnarCorpsolPvt.
Ltd.) without competitive bidding.
c) Non-compliance with Odisha Government Financial Rules (OGFR) and Finance Department guidelines particularly concerning transparency and procedural safeguards in public procurement.
(iii) Based on the supplementary audit, disciplinary proceedings were initiated on 18.11.2021 under Memorandum No. 40707. The proceedings were conducted under Rule 15 of the Odisha Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1962, and Rule 7 of the Odisha Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1992, which permits post- retirement action in cases of grave misconduct. Page 2 of 13 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 29-May-2025 06:36:37
(iv) An Inquiry Officer, an Additional Inspector General of Prisons, conducted the disciplinary inquiry and submitted his report on 16.08.2022. His key findings were:
a) No evidence of financial misappropriation, corruption, or pecuniary loss to the exchequer.
b) The alleged violations were procedural in nature and not of grave misconduct.
c) The procurements were carried out under administrative exigency and with the approval or knowledge of superior officers.
(v) Despite the Inquiry Officer's exonerating findings, the disciplinary authority imposed a penalty order dated 11.06.2024, withholding 5% of the petitioner's pension for a period of one year. The said decision was challenged before this Court in W.P.(C) No. 26053 of 2024, which was dismissed by judgment dated 30.01.2025.
(vi) In the writ petition, the petitioner challenged the penalty on grounds including absence of mens rea, procedural irregularities not amounting to grave misconduct, denial of access to certain documents, and alleged mala fide initiation of proceedings by a subsequent Director General (DG) of Prisons. The Court, however, upheld the legality of the post-
retirement disciplinary action, finding that the decision was based on substantiated audit findings and due inquiry.
(vii) The petitioner thereafter filed a review petition challenging the dismissal of the writ petition. The grounds for review.
Page 3 of 13 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 29-May-2025 06:36:37 II. GROUNDS FOR SEEKING REVIEW:
3. Learned counsel for the Petitioner earnestly made the following submissions in support of his contentions:
(i) The Court failed to properly appreciate the Inquiry Officer's report, which exonerated the petitioner of grave misconduct. Despite this, a punishment was imposed, and the Court upheld it without addressing the contradiction.
(ii) The distinction between procedural lapse and grave misconduct was not properly applied. The Court erred in treating minor supervisory lapses as sufficient for invoking post-retirement penalty under Rule 7 of the OCS (Pension) Rules, 1992.
(iii) The petitioner was denied access to key documents and relevant audit materials during the disciplinary proceedings. The principle of audialterampartem (right to fair hearing) was not followed, and this aspect was overlooked in the original judgment.
(iv) The initial audit did not raise any objection, and this was a crucial fact not considered by the Court. The later supplementary audit, forming the basis of charges, was initiated after retirement and appeared to be mala fide.
(v) There is no evidence of corruption, personal gain, or loss to the government, yet the penalty was upheld. The Court did not weigh the proportionality of punishment in light of undisputed clean service record and Presidential awards.
(vi) The Purchase Committee comprised multiple officers, but only the petitioner was proceeded against. The Court failed to consider this Page 4 of 13 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 29-May-2025 06:36:37 selective targeting, which offends the principle of equality under Article
14.
(vii) The petitioner had served with distinction and suffered reputational harm due to an unjust and excessive penalty imposed without grave findings. Given these exceptional facts, review is necessary to prevent miscarriage of justice.
III. COURT'S REASONING AND ANALYSIS:
4. Heard Learned Counsel for parties and perused the documents placed before this Court.
5. The principal grounds urged in the review petition are that the Court failed to properly appreciate the findings of the Inquiry Officer, particularly the conclusion that the alleged procedural lapses did not amount to grave misconduct; that the penalty imposed was disproportionate and unjustified in the absence of any evidence of financial impropriety or mala fide intent; that relevant documents were not made available to the petitioner during the inquiry, thereby violating the principles of natural justice; and that the action initiated post-retirement was based solely on a supplementary audit report issued after the petitioner's superannuation, allegedly driven by ulterior motives.
6. The power of review is a judicial tool carved with precision, intended not to offer a rehearing or an opportunity for a second bite at the cherry, but to correct a manifest error or miscarriage of justice that stares glaringly from the record. It is a narrow jurisdiction, not to be exercised casually or routinely, but only in exceptional situations where the Page 5 of 13 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 29-May-2025 06:36:37 judgment under review reveals a self-evident legal or factual mistake. The petitioner invites this Court to revisit its earlier decision primarily on grounds already canvassed and adjudicated. With this perspective, the Court proceeds to examine whether the present case satisfies the stringent parameters of review jurisdiction in law.
7. The power of review is not to be confused with the power of appeal. It is settled law that a review cannot be sought merely because a different view is possible or because the judgment may be perceived as erroneous by the aggrieved party. It is a limited jurisdiction, invoked not to revisit conclusions already drawn, but to correct errors so patent and self-evident that they leave no room for two interpretations, nor require elaborate reasoning to establish.
8. This position has been consistently affirmed by the Supreme Court. In Parsion Devi v. Sumitri Devi1, it was held that an error which is not self-evident and requires detailed reasoning or reappreciation of evidence cannot be treated as "an error apparent on the face of the record" so as to justify review under Order XLVII Rule 1 of the CPC. The relevant excerpts are produced below:
"Under Order 47, Rule 1 CPC a judgment may be open to review inter alia if there is a mistake or an error apparent on the face of the record. An error which is not self-evident and has to be detected by a process of reasoning, can hardly be said to be an error apparent on the face of the record justifying the court to exercise its power of review under Order 47, Rule 1 CPC. In exercise of the jurisdiction under Order 47, Rule 1 CPC it is not permissible for an erroneous 1 1997(4) RCR (Civil) 458.Page 6 of 13 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 29-May-2025 06:36:37 decision to be "reheard and corrected". A review petition, it must be remembered has a limited purpose and cannot be allowed to be "an appeal in disguise."
9. Now, according to the petitioner, the Court's alleged failure to properly consider the inquiry report dated 16.08.2022 amounts to an error apparent on the face of the record. However, this Court finds no merit in that assertion. A document that was part of the case record but not considered during the judgment cannot, by itself, be seen as an error evident on the face of the record. The Supreme Court, in AribamTuleshwar Sharma v. AribamPishak Sharma & Ors2., clarified that such an oversight falls within the domain of appellate jurisdiction. In contrast, a review is a narrower remedy, confined strictly to rectifying errors that are immediately obvious from the record. A decision that may be wrong on merits does not automatically qualify for review. It must reveal a glaring mistake or oversight to be reconsidered under review powers. The relevant excerpts are produced below:
"The Judicial Commissioner gave two reasons for reviewing his predecessor's order. The first was that his predecessor had overlooked two important documents Exs. A-1 and A-3 which showed that the respondents were in possession of the sites even in the year 1948-49 and that the grants must have been made even by then. The second was that there was a patent illegality in permitting the appellant to question, in a single writ petition, settlement made in favour of different respondents. We are afraid that neither of the reasons mentioned by the learned Judicial Commissioner constitutes a ground for review. It is true as observed by this Court in Shivdeo Singh v. State of Punjab [AIR 1963 SC 2 (1974) 4 SCC 389.Page 7 of 13 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 29-May-2025 06:36:37 1909] there is nothing in Article 226 of the Constitution to preclude a High Court from exercising the power of review which inheres in every court of plenary jurisdiction to prevent miscarriage of justice or to correct grave and palpable errors committed by it. But, there are definitive limits to the exercise of the power of review. The power of review may be exercised on the discovery of new and important matter or evidence which, after the exercise of due diligence was not within the knowledge of the person seeking the review or could not be produced by him at the time when the order was made; it may be exercised where some mistake or error apparent on the face of the record is found; it may also be exercised on any analogous ground. But, it may not be exercised on the ground that the decision was erroneous on merits. That would be the province of a court of appeal. A power of review is not to be confused with appellate powers which may enable an appellate court to correct all manner of errors committed by the subordinate court.
In the present case both the grounds on which the review was allowed were hardly grounds for review. That the two documents which were part of the record were not considered by the Court at the time of issue of a writ under Article 226 cannot be a ground for review especially when the two documents were not even relied upon by the parties in the affidavits filed before the Court in the proceedings under Article 226. Again that several instead of one writ petition should have been filed is a mere question of procedure which certainly would not justify a review. We are, therefore, of the view that the Judicial Commissioner acted without jurisdiction in allowing the review. The order of the Judicial Commissioner dated December 7, 1967 is accordingly set aside and the order dated May 25, 1965, is restored. The appeal is allowed but without costs..."(Emphasis Supplied) Page 8 of 13 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 29-May-2025 06:36:37
10. Applying the abovementioned judicial precedent to the case in hand, it is obvious that the petitioner's grounds do not meet the high threshold required for review jurisdiction. The contention that the Inquiry Officer's findings were overlooked does not establish a self-evident error. The document was part of the record and its alleged non- appreciation falls within the ambit of an appealable issue, not a reviewable one.
11. The Court reiterates that while procedural lapses were indeed noted, they were already addressed and weighed against the applicable rules in the original writ judgment. The principle of proportionality, as invoked by the petitioner, involves judicial discretion and does not, by its nature, create a patent error unless it is shown that the punishment was so grossly disproportionate that it shocks the conscience of the Court. That threshold is not met here.
12. While the court is not obligated to offer detailed justification for its conclusions in the impugned judgment, it is important to clarify a settled position in service law. The status of an inquiry report is not binding; it serves merely as a recommendation. The disciplinary authority or the court is free to arrive at an independent decision without being tethered to the report's findings. What truly matters is not rigid adherence to the report but whether the process upheld the foundational principle of natural justice. As long as the opportunity to be heard was granted and fairness was observed, the decision stands on firm legal ground.
Page 9 of 13 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 29-May-2025 06:36:37
13. This principle is affirmed by the Supreme Court in the case of State of Andhra Pradesh v. S. Sree Rama Rao3, where the Court clarified the extent of judicial review and the scope of interference under Article 226 of the Constitution. The relevant excerpts are produced below:
"7. The High Court is not constituted in a proceeding under Art. 226 of the Constitution a Court of appeal over the decision of the authorities holding a departmental enquiry against a public servant: it is concerned to determine whether the enquiry is held by an authority competent in that behalf, and according to the procedure prescribed in that behalf, and whether the rules of natural justice are not violated. Where there is some evidence, which the authority entrusted with the duty to hold the enquiry has accepted and which evidence may reasonably support the conclusion that the delinquent Officer is guilty of the charge, it is not the function of the High Court in a petition for a writ under Art. 226 to review the evidence and to arrive at an independent finding on the evidence. The High Court may undoubtedly interfere where the departmental authorities have held the proceedings against the delinquent in a manner inconsistent with the rules of natural justice or in violation of the statutory rules prescribing the mode of enquiry or where the authorities have disabled themselves from reaching a fair decision by some considerations extraneous to the evidence and the merits of the case or by allowing themselves to be influenced by irrelevant considerations or ;where the conclusion on the very face of it is so wholly arbitrary and capricious that no reasonable person could ever have arrived at that conclusion, or on similar grounds. But the departmental authorities are, if the enquiry is otherwise properly held, the sole judges of facts and if there be some legal evidence on which their findings can be based, the adequacy or reliability of that evidence is 3 AIR 1963 SC 1723.Page 10 of 13 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 29-May-2025 06:36:37 not a matter which can be permitted to be canvassed before the High Court in a proceeding for a writ under Art. 226 of the Constitution."
14. In light of the above exposition, this Court finds that the petitioner's attempt to challenge the disciplinary outcome through a review petition mischaracterizes the scope of review jurisdiction. The argument that the findings of the Inquiry Officer were not adopted by the disciplinary authority or the writ court does not itself constitute a manifest error. The law is well settled that the findings of such an inquiry are advisory and not binding.
15. The High Court is not to function as an appellate forum under Article
226. Its role is confined to ensuring procedural compliance, adherence to statutory provisions, and observance of natural justice. The High Court cannot substitute its own conclusions where some evidence exists to support the disciplinary authority's decision.
16. The present case does not demonstrate any violation of natural justice or departure from prescribed rules. The petitioner was given adequate opportunity to defend himself during the inquiry. The decision to impose a penalty of pension withholding, although made in departure from the Inquiry Officer's recommendation, is not an illegality per se, especially when the authority arrived at its conclusion through an independent application of mind. The principle that such decisions must be proportionate has not been violated in a manner so outrageous as to justify interference in review.
Page 11 of 13 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 29-May-2025 06:36:37
17. Moreover, the plea that the disciplinary proceedings were actuated by mala fide intentions or that the supplementary audit was manipulated is entirely speculative. These contentions were already examined during the original writ proceedings and found unsubstantiated. As rightly pointed out in earlier judgments, a review cannot be used as a vehicle to reargue or relitigate matters that have already been concluded on merits.
18. It is equally important to acknowledge that the disciplinary authority, operating within the administrative hierarchy, is situated closer to the facts, institutional dynamics, and operational realities that surround the conduct in question. While this Court is confined to the contours of the inquiry report and the written record, the departmental authority possesses a fuller understanding of the service environment, decision- making structures, and the implications of procedural deviations. The inquiry report serves as a guiding document, but the authority is not bound to adopt it uncritically. Its vantage point allows for a more textured evaluation of the conduct under scrutiny, informed by both formal records and contextual awareness.
19. The petitioner's distinguished service record and the absence of proven financial irregularities certainly deserve recognition. However, these factors were not ignored in the original judgment. The nature of judicial review under Article 226 does not demand a detailed reiteration of every mitigating factor when the core legal reasoning has been duly articulated. The record reflects that the Court applied its mind and rendered a decision within its jurisdictional boundaries. Page 12 of 13 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 29-May-2025 06:36:37
20. The review petition, viewed holistically, is an invitation to the Court to reassess its earlier findings through a fresh lens. That is not the function of review. A judicial error, if any, that requires weighing evidence or examining interpretive choices falls within the realm of appellate correction, not review jurisdiction.
21. For all the reasons discussed above, this Court finds no merit in the grounds urged. The petitioner has not been able to demonstrate any manifest error, jurisdictional irregularity, or violation of natural justice that would justify a reopening of the judgment dated 30.01.2025.
22. Consequently, the Review Petition stands dismissed.
23. Interim order, if any, passed earlier stands vacated.
(Dr.S.K. Panigrahi) Judge Orissa High Court, Cuttack, Dated the 16th May, 2025/ Page 13 of 13