Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Orissa High Court

Manmath Nath Sai vs State Of Odisha & Others .... Opp. ... on 29 July, 2025

             IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
                            W.P.(C) NO. 20616 OF 2025

       An application under                Articles      226     and           of     the
       Constitution of India

       Manmath Nath Sai                                    ....               Petitioner

                                          -Versus-

       State of Odisha & others                            ....           Opp. Parties

       Advocates appeared in this case:

       For Petitioner        :     M/s. C.R. Pattnaik, R. Das,
                                   B.Mohapatra & K. Mohapatra,
                                   Advocates

       For Opp. Parties:           Mr. Satyabrata Mohanty,
                                   Addl. Government Advocate

       CORAM:

       THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DIXIT KRISHNA SHRIPAD
                                    JUDGMENT

29.07.2025 PER DIXIT KRISHNA SHRIPAD,J.

Petitioner is knocking at the doors of Writ Court with the following prayers:

"Under such circumstance, it is therefore prayed that your Lordship's would be graciously pleased to admit this writ petition, call for records Page 1 of 8 and after hearing the parties may be pleased writ/s/order/s/direction/s/ in the nature of certiorari quashing the order of Collector & District Magistrate Mayurbhanj dt.15/02/2011 as well as the order of the Appellate authority, commission-cum-secretary to govt. of Odisha SC & ST Development Department Bhubaneswar dt.24.08.2012 under Annexure 2 & 7 respectively.

And further may issue a wait of mandamus directing the authority to give all service benefits by treating the suspension period & period of dismissal as on duty & other service benefits including pensionary benefits accruing to him under Law, within a stipulated period as this Hon'ble court deems fit & proper."(sic)

2. After service of notice, the official opposite parties appear through the learned AGA, who resists the petition making submission in justification of the impugned order and the circumstances in which it came to be made.

3. Brief facts of the case:

3.1. Petitioner joined service as Head Sevak-cum-Superintendent, PSC Berahipani Sevashram, Mayurbhanj. He was employed to work in the Hostel meant for girl students belong to SC/ST. Serious allegations of misbehaving the girl students, that too after consuming liquor, were leveled against the petitioner; in fact on the complaint of a minor girl student, P.S. Case No.3 of 2011 was registered by Jashipur Police Station for offences punishable under section 376 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and sections 3(1)(xii) & 3(2)(iv) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. After accomplishing investigation, police had filed the charge-sheet; charges having been framed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge, Page 2 of 8 Baripada, Trial Case No.19 of 2011 culminated in the acquittal vide order dated 02.12.2011.

3.2. In the meanwhile, the petitioner was placed under suspension vide memo no.76 dated 13.01.2011 in contemplation of disciplinary inquiry.

However, a preliminary inquiry was held on 13.01.2011 followed by a Joint Inquiry resulting into submission of inquiry report recording the findings against the petitioner. Regular inquiry with the participation of the petitioner was dispensed with in terms of order passed under the proviso to Article 311(2) of the Constitution of India. Eventually, petitioner having been found guilty of grave misconduct came to be dismissed from service vide Collector's order dated 15.02.2011. His appeal against the same also came to be negatived by the Commissioner- cum-Secretary to Government vide order dated 24.08.2012.

3.3. On the basis of acquittal order secured at the hands of learned Additional Judge-cum-Special Judge in the subject criminal case, petitioner represented for his reinstatement in service. Nothing gainful having happened, he is invoking in the writ jurisdiction for the grant of redressal to his grievance. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on certain decisions, relevant of which is discussed below.

4. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the petition papers, this Court declines indulgence in the matter for the following reasons:

4.1. The preliminary objection of learned AGA that no relief can be granted to the petitioner, in view of enormous delay and laches stand demonstrated by the very statistical data availing from the record;

petitioner was dismissed from service by the Collector and District Magistrate, Mayurbhanj vide order dated 15.02.2011; he had preferred statutory appeal. During its pendency, petitioner secured acquittal order dated 02.12.2011 at the hands of Criminal Court. In the meanwhile, he had also filed OA No.454 of 2012 before the State Administrative Tribunal calling in question the order of dismissal. The Tribunal sent back the petitioner to proceed with his pending appeal, vide order dated 16.05.2012, with liberty to press into service the order of his acquittal.

4.2. The Appellate Authority is none other than Commissioner-cum- Secretary to Government, who dismissed the appeal vide order dated 24.08.2012. The Disciplinary Authority & the Appellate Authority, having examined all aspects of the matter, found the petitioner guilty. This petition is filed on 17.07.2025 and the prayer column is already reproduced above. There is absolutely no whisper about the long delay brooked in knocking at the doors of this Court. Sages of Law such as Jeremy Bentham (acclaimed author of "Theory of Legislation and Morales"), have told that Courts would not come to the aid of tardy and sleepy. Merely because no limitation period is prescribed for seeking writ remedy, the Rule of delay & laches cannot be kept at a bay. The submission of learned counsel for the petitioner that he had already filed writ petition earlier which came to be dismissed for non-prosecution last Page 4 of 8 year with liberty to re-litigate on the same cause of action, is not demonstrated from the pleading or records. Therefore, no relief can be accorded to the petitioner at this length of time.

4.3. The first submission of learned counsel for the petitioner that in view of wildness of the allegations leveled against his client, an opportunity of participating in the inquiry ought to have been granted, more particularly when a major penalty of dismissal was passed, does not impress me even in the least and it is the girl students who are residing in the hostel with whom the alleged misbehavior took place; petitioner having consumed liquor gained entry to the qualified space, namely, SC/ST Girls' Hostel, that too during night time, poured liquor on their heads and that called them to sleep beside. The Competent Authority, regard being had to the interest of stakeholders involved, namely, the girls of downtrodden community, made the order under proviso (b) to Article 311(2) dispensing with regular inquiry. This decision has not been put in challenge, nor specific grounds are urged in the petition as to how the same can be faltered, otherwise.

4.4. The second submission of learned counsel that without giving a minimum opportunity of hearing, the petitioner has been dismissed from service and therefore impugned order is grossly in violation of the principles of natural justice, again has to fail. The dismissal order has been clamped on the petitioner not overnight but after holding a preliminary inquiry followed by a joint inquiry. As already mentioned Page 5 of 8 above, it was a case of discrete inquiry in the light of Article 311(2) Order. Principles of natural justice, it is tritely said, are sacrosanct to any civilized jurisdiction; however, they too, as any other legal principle, are not without exceptions. The proviso to Article 311 of the Constitution enacts at least three broad clauses of exceptions and the case of petitioner fits into clause (b) of the said proviso. Therefore impugned orders cannot be faltered on the pleaded violation of the principles of natural justice. The offshoot submission that the extant rules prescribed the fair procedure under the Rule 18 of the Orissa State (CC & A) Rules, would not come to the aid of petitioner, in view of protective order under Article 311(2) which enacts a higher legal norm qua the subject Rules.

4.5. The next submission passionately put forward by the learned counsel that the petitioner has secured an order of honourable acquittal in the subject criminal case at the hands of learned Special Judge and therefore dismissal from service needs to be set aside with a direction for reinstatement, cannot be agreed to. Firstly, petitioner could not secure stay of disciplinary proceedings pending disposal of the criminal case. It has long been settled position in Service Jurisprudence that both a disciplinary inquiry and a criminal proceeding founded on the same substratum can proceed simultaneously, subject to all just exceptions. It hardly needs to be stated that the nature, scope, object, evidentiary principles applicable, the authorities before whom such proceedings are brought about, in disciplinary inquiry & criminal case differ from each other in a great deal. Merely because a delinquent employee gained an Page 6 of 8 acquittal order in a criminal case, subsequent to conclusion of inquiry proceedings, the disciplinary action cannot be liquidated, subject to all just exceptions. Assuming the contra to be correct, an acquittal simplicitor would not come to the protection of a delinquent employee who has a record of proven guilt. Despite vociferous submission, no case is made out from the acquittal order that it is honourable acquittal. Therefore, petitioner's reliance on Apex Court decision in Ram Lal v. State of Rajasthan, 2023 15 SCR 808 would not come to his aid. It is a settled position in the realm of law of precedent that a case is an authority for the proposition laid down in a given fact matrix, and not for all that, that logically follows from what has been so laid down vide Quinn v. Leathem, [1901] UKHL 2.

4.6. Learned AGA is right in telling that a writ Court focuses on the decision making process as contra distinguished from the very decision itself. A writ Court is not a Court of appeal to undertake re-examination of entire material on record which are generated in the Disciplinary Inquiry followed by dismissal order and that followed by order of the Appellate Authority confirming dismissal. Disciplinary Authority is none other than District Collector, who normally is of IAS (Senior Scale); the Appellate Authority is the State Government and it functions through the Secretary of the Department conserved. These are high functionaries of the Government. It is not the case of petitioner that they lacked competence to evaluate the matter nor any mala fide is alleged against them. Personnel of this kind have the benefit of accumulate experience.

Unless error apparent on the face of proceedings is demonstrated, a Writ Court cannot readily interfere in matters of disciplinary action, especially when proven misconduct is grave. If delinquent employees of petitioner kind were to be reinstated, the security of girl students and the confidence of their parents would have been shaken, to say the least. Therefore, even on the principle of proportionality, the punishment accords with gravity of proven guilt.

In the above circumstances, this petition, being devoid of merits, is liable to be dismissed and accordingly it is, costs having been reluctantly made easy.

Dixit Krishna Shripad Judge Orissa High Court, Cuttack The 29th July, 2025/Prashanta Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: PRASANT KUMAR SAHOO Designation: PERSONAL ASSISTANT Reason: Authentication Location: Orissa High Court Date: 31-Jul-2025 10:48:12 Page 8 of 8