WP(C)/8351/2009 of MAHESWAR KHUNTIA Vs STATE on 1 September 2026

ORDER

01.09.2026

Order No.20

1. This matter is taken up through hybrid mode.

2. Heard learned counsel for the Parties.

3. The present Writ Petition has been filed inter alia with the following prayer:- “In the premises aforesaid, it is most humbly prayed that this Hon’ble Court may graciously be pleased to issue notices to the Opp. Parties, calling upon them to show cause as to why the prayer of the petitioner to quash the order dated 13.05.2009 and the order dated 04.12.2008 under Annexure-5 passed by the Opp. Party No.4 as well as the order dated 28.03.2009 under Annexure-6 passed by the Opp. Party No.3 shall not be allowed and also why the withheld amount towards gratuity and unutilized leave salary shall not be disbursed with interest and upon their showing no cause, false cause or insufficient cause, make the rule absolute by quashing the order dated 13.05.2009 and the order dated 04.12.2008 passed by the Opp. Party No.4 as well as the order dated 28.03.2009 under Annexure-6 passed by the Opp. Party No.3 and also direct to disburse the amount pending towards gratuity and unutilized leave salary with interest and further be pleased to pass such other order/orders that may be deemed fit in the facts and circumstances of the case;

And for which act of kindness, the petitioner as in duty bound shall ever pray.”

4. It is contended that in the proceeding initiated against the Petitioner vide office order dated 13.07.2006, Petitioner filed his reply and thereafter participated in the enquiry.

4.1. It is contended that after completion of the enquiry, the enquiry officer submitted the report under Annexure-A to the counter affidavit so filed by the Opp. Party-Corporation with the following finding:- “It is not confirmed what number of trees were made shortage by Sri Khuntia, F.A. or whether any number of trees were actually made shortage during his tenure. But from the fact that Sri Khuntia, F.A. had not submitted any report or tour diary regarding the working of plantations entrusted to him, it is confirmed that he had neglected his duties completely. Hence if the number of trees made shortage during the tenure of working of Sri Khuntia, F.A. in the plantations, can be confirmed the working cost of the same may be recovered from him and the maximum limit of the amount recoverable from him will be equal to the salary drawn by him during his tenure of working in the plantations i.e. from October'03 to April'05 as his negligence in duty has already been proved. As Sri Khuntia, F.A. has already retired from corporation service, it cannot be appropriate to inflict any other punishment on him as it can, in no way, effect his service. Hence the amount as mentioned above may only be recovered from him.”

4.2. It is contended that while forwarding a copy of the enquiry report vide letter dated 21.08.2008 so enclosed as Annexure-E to the counter affidavit, the Disciplinary Authority without proposing any punishment to be imposed, directed the Petitioner to attend his office for personal hearing.

4.3. It is contended that since while forwarding the enquiry report vide letter dated 21.08.2008, no such punishment was ever proposed, no such punishment could have been imposed by the Disciplinary Authority so imposed vide order dated 04.12.2008 under Annexure-5, and that too in absence of any disagreement with the finding of the Enquiry Officer .

4.4. It is further contended that since the Enquiry Officer in his report under Annexure-A to the counter affidavit opined to recover from the Petitioner, at best the salary drawn for the period from October, 2003 to April, 2005 towards the loss caused by him, on the face of such finding of the Enquiry Officer, the disciplinary authority could not have directed to recover a sum of Rs.2,81,923/- vide order dated 04.12.2008 under Annexure-5. It is also contended that such an amount has been recovered from the retiral benefits of the Petitioner.

4.5. It is also contended that challenging such order passed by the Disciplinary Authority under Annexure-5, Petitioner though preferred an appeal, but the Appellate Authority without proper appreciation dismissed the same vide order dated 28.03.2009 under Annexure-6.

4.6. While assailing the impugned order passed by the Disciplinary Authority under Annexure-5, so confirmed by the Appellate Authority under Annexure-6, learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner contended that since while forwarding the enquiry report vide letter dated 21.08.2008, under Annexure-E to the counter no such punishment was proposed, the punishment imposed on the Petitioner vide the impugned order dated 04.12.2008 under Annexure-5 cannot sustain legal scrutiny.

4.7. It is also contended that in letter dated 21.08.2008, the Disciplinary Authority never gave his opinion as to why he is not in agreement with the view of the Enquiry Officer, under Annexure-A to the counter affidavit.

4.8. It is accordingly contended that since while forwarding the enquiry report vide letter dated 21.08 .2008, no such punishment was proposed nor the reason for not in agreement with the finding of the Enquiry Officer, punishment imposed vide the impugned order under Annexure-5, confirmed vide order under Annexure-6 requires interference of this Court. It is however fairly contended that Petitioner will have no grievance if as proposed by the Enquiry Officer, amount equivalent to the salary drawn for the period from October, 2003 to April, 2005 is recovered and the balance amount so recovered from the retiral benefits of the Petitioner is refunded within a stipulated time period.

5. Mr. S.K. Das, learned counsel appearing for the Opp. Party- Corporation on the other hand made his submission basing on the stand taken in the counter affidavit. It is contended that after retirement of the Petitioner on 30.04.2005, when it was found that Petitioner has caused loss to the Corporation, proceeding was initiated against him on 13.07.2006. In the said proceeding the Enquiry Office when held the Petitioner guilty of the charges and submitted the report under Annexure-A, Petitioner was given personal hearing on 16.09.2008, in terms of the letter issued on 21.08.2008 under Annexure-E to the counter affidavit.

5.1. After giving a personal hearing to the Petitioner, the Disciplinary Authority while disposing the proceeding, imposed the following punishment on the Petitioner vide his order dated 04.08.2012 under Annexure-5. “i)For shortage of 85,000 nos. of standing trees in 4 nos. commercial plantations working cost of which come to rs.2,81,923/-(Rupees two lakh eighty one thousand nine hundred twenty three) only be recovered from the retirement dues of Sri Khuntia. field Asst. (retired)”

5.2. It is contended that appeal filed by the Petitioner against such order was also rejected by the Appellate Authority vide order dated 28.03.2009 Under Annexure-5. It is accordingly contended that since the Disciplinary Authority disposed of the proceeding by following due procedure of law and by giving opportunity of hearing to the Petitioner and such order passed by the Disciplinary Authority has been confirmed by the Appellate Authority, no illegality or irregularity can be found with the same.

5.3. It is however fairly contended that, the punishment so imposed on the Petitioner holding him liable to pay a sum of Rs.2,81,923/- has been recovered from the retiral benefits of the Petitioner.

6. Having heard learned counsel appearing for the Parties and considering the submission made, it is found that Petitioner while continuing under the Corporation, he retired from service on attaining the age of superannuation on 30.04.2005. However the proceeding in question was initiated on 13.07.2006, placing reliance on the provisions contained under Regulation 123A of the Corporations Regulation.

6.1. It is not disputed that such a proceeding can be initiated in terms of the aforesaid provision. But as found, in the said proceedings the Enquiry Officer after completing his enquiry submitted the report vide Annexure-A to the counter affidavit, by proposing to recover the loss caused to the corporation from the Petitioner equivalent to the salary drawn by him for the period from October, 2003 to April, 2005.

6.2. As found the Disciplinary Authority while forwarding the enquiry report vide letter dated 21.08.2008 under Annexure-E, never proposed any punishment nor assigned any reason for not in agreement with the findings of the Enquiry Officer and instead asked the Petitioner to have a personal hearing on 16.09.2008.

6.3. It is the view of this Court that since in letter dated 21.08.2008 so issued under Annexure-E, no such punishment to be imposed on the Petitioner was proposed nor anything was opined as to why the Disciplinary Authority- Opp. Party No.4 is not in agreement with the finding of the Enquiry Officer, no such punishment could have been imposed, so imposed vide order dated 04.12.2008 under Annexure-5 confirmed by Opp. Party No.3 in his order dated 28.03.2009 under Annexure-6.

6.4. Since the notice issued on 21.08.2008 prior to imposing the punishment is a defective one and not in accordance with law, and the Disciplinary Authority-Opp. Party No.4 imposed the punishment contrary to the finding of the Enquiry Officer, this Court is inclined to interfere with the impugned order passed by

Opp. Party No.4 under Annexure-5, confirmed by Opp. Party No.3 in his order under Annexure-6. While quashing both the orders under Annexure-5 & 6, this Court held the Petitioner liable to pay the sum equal to the salary drawn by him for the period from October, 2003 to April, 2005, so proposed by the Enquiry Officer.

6.5. Accordingly, this Court while disposing the Writ Petition with quashing of the order under Annexure-4 & 5 directs Opp. Party No.2 to recover the sum equivalent to the salary drawn by the Petitioner for the period from October, 2003 to April, 2005, and refund the residue amount so recovered from the retiral benefit of the Petitioner, within a period of two (2) months from the date of receipt of this order.

7. Accordingly, the Writ Petition stands disposed of.

(BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY)

Judge

Jyoti Digitally Signed Signed by: JYOTIPRAVA BHOL Reason: Authentication Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA Date: 08-Sep-2026 11:12:27 Signature Not Verified