Orissa High Court
Rikhiram Chandrakar vs The State Of Odisha And Ors. .... ... on 30 January, 2025
Author: S.K. Panigrahi
Bench: S.K. Panigrahi
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR
Designation: AR-CUM-SR. SECRETARY
Reason: Authentication
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
Date: 03-Feb-2025 18:34:02
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
W.P.(C) No.10970 of 2024
(In the matter of an application under Articles 226 and 227 of the
Constitution of India, 1950).
Rikhiram Chandrakar .... Petitioner(s)
-versus-
The State of Odisha and Ors. .... Opposite Party (s)
Advocates appeared in the case through Hybrid Mode:
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Bhabani Shankar Dasparida, Adv.
For Opposite Party (s) : Mr. S.N. Pattnaik, AGA
CORAM:
DR. JUSTICE S.K. PANIGRAHI
DATE OF HEARING:-10.01.2025
DATE OF JUDGMENT:-30.01.2025
Dr. S.K. Panigrahi, J.
1. In this Writ Petition, the Petitioner seeks quashing of the order dated 03.04.2024 passed by GA (Vigilance) Department, which mandates a de novo inquiry. Additionally, the petitioner asserts his entitlement to promotion and associated benefits, premised on the closure of the original disciplinary proceeding.
I. FACTUAL MATRIX OF THE CASE:
2. The brief facts of the case are as follows:
Page 1 of 12 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR
Designation: AR-CUM-SR. SECRETARY Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 03-Feb-2025 18:34:02
(i) A disciplinary proceeding was initiated against the petitioner under Rule-15 of the OCS (CC&A) Rules, 1962. This proceeding was based on Koraput Vigilance P.S. Case No. 27, dated 04.07.2017. The Sub-Collector of Nabarangpur, acting as the Inquiring Officer, submitted an inquiry report on 09.09.2020, concluding that the charges against the petitioner were unsubstantiated.
(ii) The petitioner filed W.P. (C) No. 35168/2022 before the High Court of Orissa seeking:
a. Disposal of the disciplinary proceeding initiated in 2019. b. Promotion to the post Assistant District Welfare Officer (ADWO). c. Grant of notional services benefits.
(iii) On 23.12.2022, the High Court directed the Director of ST (Opposite Party No. 2) to conclude the disciplinary proceedings within two months. If not concluded, it would be deemed that the disciplinary proceeding had been dropped, and the petitioner's case for promotion would be considered.
(iv) Following the High Court's directive, the Disciplinary Authority closed the proceeding on 04.05.2023.
(v) The GA (Vigilance) Department reviewed the closure of the disciplinary proceedings. It observed that the Inquiring Officer had not examined critical witnesses, including Vigilance Officers cited as evidence in the case. The inquiry report was criticized for relying only on select depositions and reports without sufficient evidence.
(vi) Based on the Vigilance Department's findings, a de novo inquiry was ordered on 03.04.2024. The new inquiry was tasked with examining Page 2 of 12 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Designation: AR-CUM-SR. SECRETARY Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 03-Feb-2025 18:34:02 Vigilance Officers and other critical evidence to ensure a fair investigation.
(vii) Aggrieved by the initiation of the new inquiry, the petitioner seeks quashing of the order for a de novo inquiry. He further claims entitlement to promotion and associated benefits based on the closure of the original disciplinary proceeding.
II. SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER:
3. Learned counsel for the Petitioner earnestly made the following submissions in support of his contentions:
(i) The petitioner contends that the order for a de novo inquiry is illegal, arbitrary, and violates his rights under Articles 14, 16, and 300-A of the Constitution. The petitioner has already been exonerated through a proper inquiry, and reopening the case amounts to harassment.
(ii) The petitioner argues that the selection of beneficiaries under Indira Awas Yojana was the responsibility of PEOs, not the WEO. His role was limited to counter-signing bills after the PEOs had completed their selection process.
(iii) The petitioner highlights the damage caused to his career due to the delayed closure of proceedings, loss of promotions, and the holding up of increments and benefits since 2017.
(iv) He points to this Court's earlier directive to conclude the proceedings within a stipulated time, which was complied with, and proceedings were closed on 04.05.2023.
(v) The petitioner alleges that the de novo inquiry was ordered vindictively after the High Court showed an inclination to quash the criminal case Page 3 of 12 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Designation: AR-CUM-SR. SECRETARY Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 03-Feb-2025 18:34:02 (CRLMC No. 2783/2021). He asserts that the re-opening of the case is in bad faith, ignores established principles of law, and is not supported by substantive evidence.
III. SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE OPPOSITE PARTIES:
4. The Learned Counsel for the Opposite Parties earnestly made the following submissions in support of his contentions:
(i) The Opposite Party contends that the original inquiry was incomplete, as the Inquiring Officer failed to examine key witnesses, particularly Vigilance Officer cited in the memo of evidence.
(ii) The decision to order de novo inquiry is justified on the grounds of procedural irregularities and inadequate examination of evidence in the initial inquiry. The re-investigation aims to address these shortcomings and ensure justice.
(iii) It is claimed that the petitioner used the exoneration from the disciplinary proceeding to seek quashing of a related criminal case (CRLMC No. 2783/2021) before this Court.
(iv) The GA (Vigilance) Department argues that the original inquiry report was insufficient and flawed, necessitating a re-evaluation of the case through a de novo inquiry. Accordingly, the Opposite party urges the court to dismiss the writ petition, arguing that the petitioner's contentions are unsustainable and lack merit.
IV. COURT'S REASONING AND ANALYSIS:
5. Heard Learned Counsel for parties and perused the documents placed before this Court.
Page 4 of 12 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR
Designation: AR-CUM-SR. SECRETARY Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 03-Feb-2025 18:34:02
6. The present dispute arises from disciplinary proceedings initiated against the petitioner concerning Koraput Vigilance P.S. Case No. 27. Pursuant to a directive issued by the Hon'ble High Court, the disciplinary authority concluded the proceedings on May 4, 2023. Subsequently, the GA (Vigilance) Department, upon reviewing the closure, identified significant procedural deficiencies. Notably, the Inquiring Officer had failed to examine critical witnesses, including Vigilance Officers whose testimonies were pivotal to the matter. The inquiry report was further criticized for relying disproportionately on selective depositions and reports, without sufficiently addressing the evidentiary foundation of the charges. Acting on these findings, the Vigilance Department directed the initiation of a de novo inquiry on 03.04.2024.
7. The pivotal question before this Court is whether a de novo inquiry can be lawfully initiated after the disciplinary proceedings have already been concluded. This issue necessitates a careful examination of the relevant procedural framework governing disciplinary proceedings, particularly Rule 15 of the Odisha Civil Services (Classification, Control, and Appeal) Rules, 1962
8. Rule 15(1) establishes the foundational principle that no order imposing penalties, as enumerated under Clauses (vi) to (ix) of Rule 13, may be passed against a government servant without conducting an inquiry, which must adhere to the prescribed procedures. This safeguards the fundamental rights of the employee while ensuring that disciplinary actions are based on due process.
Page 5 of 12 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR
Designation: AR-CUM-SR. SECRETARY Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 03-Feb-2025 18:34:02
9. Clause (2) of Rule 15 outlines the initial stages of the disciplinary process, mandating the framing and written communication of charges, accompanied by a detailed statement of allegations. This clause also affords the government servant an opportunity to submit a written statement of defense. Under Clause (3), the charged officer is entitled to inspect and extract relevant official records, subject to certain limitations to ensure procedural fairness and transparency.
10. Clause (4) delineates the authority of the Disciplinary Authority to either conduct an inquiry into the charges not admitted by the government servant or, if deemed necessary, appoint a Board of Inquiry or an Inquiring Officer for the purpose.
11. At the conclusion of the inquiry, Clause (7) mandates the Inquiring Authority to prepare a comprehensive report, recording findings on each charge along with the reasons. The clause permits findings on charges differing from those originally framed, provided the government servant has either admitted the facts constituting such charges or has been afforded an opportunity to defend against them.
12. Under Clause (9), the Disciplinary Authority, if distinct from the Inquiring Authority, must consider the inquiry's record and independently record its findings on each charge. Clause (10) further provides for the issuance of a show-cause notice, ensuring that the government servant is granted an additional opportunity to respond before any final decision is rendered.
13. It appears to this Court that Rule 15, by its very nature, contemplates a singular inquiry, carefully constructed to ensure both justice and Page 6 of 12 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Designation: AR-CUM-SR. SECRETARY Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 03-Feb-2025 18:34:02 procedural regularity. However, there may arise those rare instances where the inquiry, though undertaken, falls short of its intended purpose. If a grievous defect has permeated the proceedings, undermining their integrity, or if critical witnesses, whose testimony could illuminate the matter, were absent or left unexamined for reasons that bear scrutiny, the Disciplinary Authority may justly direct the Inquiry Officer to gather further evidence.
14. The questions of competence to direct a de novo inquiry is well-settled in law and no longer open to doubt. A wealth of judicial precedents has firmly addressed this issue, providing clarity and guidance on its contours. In this context, the Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court, in K.R. Deb v. The Collector of Central Excise, Shillong 1 deliberated on the statutory framework under the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control, and Appeal) Rules, 1957. These provisions, which closely parallel those of the Odisha Civil Services (Classification, Control, and Appeal) Rules, 1962, were examined with precision to determine the boundaries of a disciplinary authority's power to order a fresh inquiry. The relevant portion of this judgment is produced below:
"It seems to us that Rule 15, on the face of it, really provides for one inquiry but it may be possible if in a particular case there has been no proper enquiry because some serious defect has crept into the inquiry or some important witnesses were not available at the time of the inquiry or were not examined for some other reason, the Disciplinary Authority may ask the Inquiry Officer to record further evidence. But there is no provision in rule 15 for completely setting aside previous 1 1971 AIR 1447.
Page 7 of 12 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR
Designation: AR-CUM-SR. SECRETARY Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 03-Feb-2025 18:34:02 inquiries on the ground that the report- of, the Inquiring Officer or Officers does not appeal to the disciplinary, Authority-. The Disciplinary Authority has enough powers to reconsider the evidence itself and come to its own conclusion under rule 9.."
15. The aforementioned judgment was later revisited and reaffirmed by the Supreme Court in Union of India and Others v. P. Thayagarajan.2 In this case, the Court undertook a meticulous examination of the principles laid down in K.R. Deb (Supra) and further substantiated its findings. The relevant excerpt is produced below:
"A careful reading of this passage will make it clear that this court notices that if in a particular case where there has been no proper enquiry because of some serious defect having crept into the inquiry or some important witnesses were not available at the time of the inquiry or were not examined, the Disciplinary Authority may ask the Inquiry Officer to record further evidence but that provision would not enable the Disciplinary Authority to set aside the previous enquiries on the ground that the report of the Enquiry Officer does not appeal to the Disciplinary Authority. In the present case the basis upon which the Disciplinary Authority set aside the enquiry is that the procedure adopted by the Enquiry Officer was contrary to the relevant rules and affects the rights of the parties and not that the report does not appeal to him. When important evidence, either to be relied upon by the department or by the delinquent official, is shut out, this would not result in any advancement of any justice but on the other hand result in a miscarriage thereof. Therefore we are of the view that Rule 27(c) enables the Disciplinary Authority to record his findings on the report and to pass an appropriate order including ordering a de novo enquiry in a case of present nature." 2
AIR 1999 SUPREME COURT 449.
Page 8 of 12 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR
Designation: AR-CUM-SR. SECRETARY Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 03-Feb-2025 18:34:02
16. Upon careful consideration of the judicial precedents and the relevant statutory provisions, it is evident that where procedural rules are framed, they must be followed with strict fidelity. In this context, it is undeniable that the OCS (CC&A) Rules, 1962, do not explicitly confer upon the disciplinary authority the power to order a de novo inquiry. However, equally, the rules do not expressly preclude such an order. The language of the provisions is broadly framed, offering discretion to the disciplinary authority without prescribing an exhaustive enumeration of permissible orders.
17. At this juncture, it would be appropriate for this Court to peruse the Supreme Court's judgment of State of Assam and Anr. v. J.N. Roy Biswas3 . The Supreme Court in this case, upholding the stance that the disciplinary authority can always order fresh enquiry, held as under:
"We may however make it clear that no government servant can urge that if for some technical or other good ground, procedural or other, the first enquiry or punishment or exoneration is found bad in law that a second enquiry cannot be launched."
18. The aforementioned precedent found further resonance in the case of Anand Narain Shukla v. State of Madhya Pradesh.4 In this matter, the inquiry proceedings were concluded, but upon the filing of a writ petition, the initial inquiry was quashed. Subsequently, fresh proceedings were initiated on the same charges, which culminated in findings of guilt on certain counts, and appropriate punishment was 3 1975 AIR 2277.
41979 AIR 1923.
Page 9 of 12 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR
Designation: AR-CUM-SR. SECRETARY Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 03-Feb-2025 18:34:02 imposed. When challenged in a second writ petition, the petitioner argued that a fresh inquiry on identical charges was impermissible. The High Court, however, rejected this contention and dismissed the petition. The Supreme Court upheld the decision of the High Court and observed that:
"..The earlier order was quashed on the technical ground. On merits, a second enquiry could be held. It was rightly held.."
19. In alignment with the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in the aforementioned cases, the Delhi High Court, in Nahar Singh v. Union of India and Others5 articulated a similar position and held as under:
"From the aforesaid decisions of the Supreme Court it would follow that, depending on the facts of each case, it is possible to order de novo enquiry if there has been no proper enquiry because of any serious defect. If, for example, principles of natural justice have been violated, then it is open to the disciplinary authority to come to the conclusion that a de novo enquiry should be held."
20. Upon careful consideration of the relevant provisions and the abovementioned precedents and drawing parallels of the same with the case in hand, it can be observed that the Vigilance Department has identified substantial deficiencies in the initial inquiry. Notably, the Inquiring Officer failed to examine critical witnesses, including Vigilance Officers whose testimonies were cited as crucial in the memo of evidence.
5 1991 (21) DRJ 171.
Page 10 of 12 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR
Designation: AR-CUM-SR. SECRETARY Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 03-Feb-2025 18:34:02
21. Moreover, the inquiry report relied disproportionately on select depositions and reports without adequately addressing the evidentiary foundation of the charges. These omissions constitute grave procedural defects that undermine the veracity and fairness of the inquiry process, rendering its conclusions unreliable. The initiation of a de novo inquiry in such circumstances is, therefore, justified to cure these defects and ensure a thorough and impartial examination of the charges.
22. The petitioner's reliance on the closure of the disciplinary proceedings on 04.05.2023 and the subsequent directive of this High Court to consider his promotion does not preclude the initiation of a de novo inquiry where procedural defects are later identified. While the closure of the proceedings was in compliance with the earlier directive of this Court, the subsequent review by the Vigilance Department has revealed serious lapses that warrant further investigation. The petitioner's claim that the de novo inquiry was ordered vindictively or in bad faith is unsubstantiated and unsupported by evidence. Administrative actions, unless proven to be tainted by malice or arbitrariness, are presumed to be taken in good faith and in the discharge of official duties. V. CONCLUSION:
23. In light of the foregoing analysis, this Court is of the considered view that the initiation of the de novo inquiry is lawful, justified, and necessary to address the procedural deficiencies in the initial inquiry.
24. However, the dismissal of the petitioner's case must not be interpreted as a license for the disciplinary authorities to perpetuate similar lapses in the future. It is the solemn duty of those entrusted with disciplinary Page 11 of 12 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Designation: AR-CUM-SR. SECRETARY Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 03-Feb-2025 18:34:02 proceedings to conduct their inquiries with utmost diligence, fairness, and fidelity to procedural norms. The errors committed in the initial inquiry have exacted a heavy toll on the petitioner, compelling him to endure the ordeal of repeated scrutiny, a burden that ought to have been avoided had the process been conducted with the rigor and thoroughness demanded of such proceedings.
25. Accordingly, this Court directs the disciplinary authorities to conclude the de novo inquiry within an unextendable period of two months from the date of this judgment. Let this timeline be adhered to with the urgency and seriousness befitting the solemn duty at hand.
26. Thus, the Petitioner's challenge to the order dated 03.04.2024 is devoid of merit and is, accordingly, dismissed.
27. Interim order, if any, passed earlier stands vacated.
(Dr.S.K. Panigrahi) Judge Orissa High Court, Cuttack, Dated the 30th January, 2025/ Page 12 of 12