Orissa High Court
Santosh Kumar Bhanja vs State Of Orissa & Others .... Opposite ... on 11 April, 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
W.P.(C) (OAC) No.1421 of 2018
Santosh Kumar Bhanja .... Petitioner
Ms. B.K. Pattnaik, Adv.
-versus-
State of Orissa & Others .... Opposite Parties
Mr.S.K. Samal, AGA
COROM:
JUSTICE BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY
ORDER
11.04.2023 Order No
04. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Mode.
2. Heard Ms. B.K.Pattnaik, learned counsel for the Petitioner and Mr. S.K. Samal, learned Addl. Government Advocate for the State.
3. The Petitioner has filed the present Writ Petition challenging the order of punishment passed vide order dated 17.12.2016 under Annexure-7 and confirmed by the appellate authority vide his order under Annexure-8 and further confirmed by the revisional authority vide order under Annexure-9.
4. Learned counsel for the Petitioner contended that the Petitioner while continuing as a Driver in PTC, Angul, the proceeding was initiated against him under Annexure-1 with the following charge:-
< On 08.03.2015 at about 6 P.M., while Vice-Principal PTC, Angul had been to Parade ground PTC, Angul o n official duty, he saw one motorcycle coming with high speed from 150 Men Barrack side towards Magazine Guard in the middle of parade ground (prohibited zone). Apprehending danger to security to ARmoury and thinking it to be a human bomb, he shouted to stop him to avoid an explosion.
ON his shouting and howling of Sentries of magazine guard, the rider of the said vehicle turned the Motor Cycle towards // 2 // DSI Office. V.P. ascertained the rider to be Driver Havildar Santosh Kumar Bhanja of PTC, Angul. When Vice-Principal PTC, Angul asked him in presence of DSI P.K. Swain who was at Main Gate to check the duty post and WC/Reeta Sethy, who was sentry of Main Gate duty, as to why he (Driver Havildar S.K.Bhanja) was driving the said Motor Cycle in the prohibited zone of armoury and in the middle of the parade ground, he (delinquent Driver Havildar) made discourteous arguments by using filthy languages to V.P. PTC, Angul. He was also found to be drunk, While V.P. PTC, Angul was making preparation to send him for medical check up, he pushed V.P. PTC, Angul aside and fled away. In this connection V.P. PTC, Angul entered the fact in Main Gate station diary vide S.L. No.77 dtd. 08.03.2015. Subsequently, V.P. PTC, Angul enquired into the matter in front of DSI Office PTC, Angul, and came to know from the persons namely Havildar P.K.Pattanaik, Hav. P.K. Sahu and Constable K.P. Sahu of Canteen, PTC Angul, who were present there, that the said motorcycle (Numberless) used by the delinquent Driver Havildar belongs to Hav. Debadutta Bhukta, PTC Angul which was shifted away by Havildar Debadatta Bhukta, PTC, Angul at once=.
4.1. It is contended that the Petitioner after filing his show cause duly participated in the enquiry and the enquiry officer while submitting the report though gave a finding under Annexure-3 that the Petitioner is not guilty of the charges, but the disciplinary authority-Opposite Party No.3 on the face of such finding of the enquiry officer issued the 2nd show cause by proposing to impose punishment of one black mark and to treat the period of suspension as such vide notice issued on 28.11.2016 under Annexure-6.
4.2. Learned counsel for the Petitioner contended that since the enquiry officer did not find any fault with the Petitioner and clearly held that the Petitioner is not guilty of the charges, Opposite Party No.3 by taking a different view should not have been issued the 2nd show cause and subsequently passed the order of punishment vide the impugned order dated 17.12.2016 under Annexure-7.
4.3. It is also contended that against the order of punishment so passed by the Opposite Party No.3, the Page 2 of 5 // 3 // Petitioner though preferred an appeal, but the appellate authority without assigning any reason rejected the appeal vide order at Annexure-8 dated 09.08.2017. The Petitioner when moved a revision before the Opposite Party No.1, the revisional authority also without proper appreciation of the grounds taken by the Petitioner dismissed the revision vide order at Annexure-9 dated 19.03.2018.
4.4. It is the main contention of Ms. Pattnaik that as provided under Appendix-49, Clause-10, if the disciplinary authority finds that the enquiry has not been conducted properly then he can direct for fresh enquiry instead of issuing show cause to the delinquent employee. The same having been not followed in the present case, the order of punishment passed by the disciplinary authority under Annexure-7 and confirmed by the appellate authority as well as the by the revisional authority under Annexure-8 & 9 are not sustainable in the eye of law.
5. Mr. S.K. Samal, learned Addl. Government Advocate on the other hand made his submission basing on the stand taken in the counter affidavit so filed by the Opposite Party No.3. It is contended that in course of enquiry, though the enquiry officer found material regarding plying of the motor cycle by the Petitioner inside the parade ground, just adjacent to the PTC play ground, which is declared as prohibited place, but while submitting the report he gave a different finding by holding the Petitioner not guilty of the charges. The disciplinary authority-Opposite Party No.3 by differing with the view of the enquiry officer, issued the 1st show cause under Annexure-4 and 2nd show cause under Annexure-6 by proposing to impose the punishment. In view of the fact Page 3 of 5 // 4 // that the Petitioner on the particular day plied his motor cycle within the prohibited area adjacent to the PTC play ground, the disciplinary authority by not agreeing with the finding of the enquiry officer and after giving due opportunity of hearing to the Petitioner with issuance of the 1st and 2nd show cause passed the order of punishment under Annexure-7. The order of punishment so passed under Annexure-7 has also been confirmed by the appellate authority as well as by the revisional authority vide order at Annexures-8 & 9. Accordingly, it is contended that the prayer as made by the Petitioner is not entertainable.
6. Having heard learned counsel for the Parties and after going through the materials available on record, it is found that the Petitioner was proceeded with the proceeding in question with the allegation that he plied the motorcycle in the prohibited area. In course of hearing, though material came before the enquiry officer and he found that the Petitioner to have plied the motorcycle in the prohibited area, but on the face of such material available with him, he held the Petitioner not guilty of the charges while submitting the enquiry report under Annexure-3.
7. Since the enquiry officer on the face of the material available on the Petitioner held the Petitioner is not guilty of the charges, the disciplinary authority by differing with the views of the enquiry officer and by following the provision contained under the PMR, issued 1st and 2nd show cause by proposing the punishment. The disciplinary authority after due consideration of the reply to the show cause passed the order of punishment under Annexure-7. The order so passed by the disciplinary Page 4 of 5 // 5 // authority has also been confirmed by the appellate authority as well as by the revisional authority vide order under Annexures-8 & 9.
8. In view of such concurrent finding of the authorities concerned, this Court finds no illegality or irregularity with the order passed initially under Annexure-7 and so confirmed vide order under Annexures-8 & 9. Therefore, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the impugned order and dismiss the Writ Petition accordingly.
(Biraja Prasanna Satapathy) Judge Subrat Page 5 of 5