State Of Orissa & Anr vs Sangram Keshari Misra & Anr

In the year 2002 the first respondent, an officer belonging to IAS cadre, was working as a Special Secretary, Planning and Coordination Department, Government of Orissa. The State Government issued a charge memorandum dated 29.4.2002 charging him as follows :

(emphasis supplied) The first respondent challenged the said charge memorandum in Original Application No. 336/2002 on the file of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Cuttack. The Tribunal issued notice regarding admission on 21.5.2002 but did not grant interim relief sought for. The first respondent filed a writ petition in the High Court of Orissa on 7.6.2002 (OJC No. 6001/2002) for declaring the charge memorandum dated 29.4.2002 to be 3 void and for an interim direction not to proceed in pursuance of the said charge memorandum, pending disposal of his application before the Tribunal and the writ petition before the High Court. On 12.6.2002 the High Court issued notice in regard to the said writ petition and stayed the enquiry in pursuance of the charge memorandum dated 29.4.2002. When the said interim stay was in operation, Government of Orissa issued a corrigendum dated 22.6.2002 to the charge memorandum dated 29.4.2002, amending the words "Misc.Case No.238 of 2001 "wherever it appears by the words "Misc. Case No. 236 of 2001".

4. The High Court heard the writ petition and the contempt petition filed by the first respondent and disposed them by orders dated 6.12.2002. By the order disposing the writ petition, the charge memorandum dated 29.4.2002 and corrigendum dated 26.2.2002 were quashed with an observation that as a consequence OA No. 336 of 2002 pending before the Tribunal also stood 4 disposed of with a direction to Tribunal to close the said O.A. The contempt petition was disposed of by closing the contempt proceedings with the following observations:

5. On 27.10.2003 this court granted leave after condoning the delay and made an interim order permitting the State to pursue the disciplinary proceedings initiated against the first respondent subject however to the condition that the orders, if any, passed will not be communicated until further orders of this Court. By further order dated 13.2.2004, it was 5 clarified that the disciplinary proceedings shall not stand in the way of the promotion of first respondent due to him and any promotion granted will be subject to the result of these appeals. Inspite of the liberty reserved to proceed with the enquiry, till now the enquiry has not been commenced. We are told that a new Enquiry officer (Dr. Aurobindo Behera, IAS, Principal Secretary to Govt. of Orissa) has been appointed. The appellant who has been serving as Officer on Special duty in the Board of Revenue has recently been promoted to the rank of Principal Secretary to the Government of Orissa. Be that as it may.

8. We are of the view that in the peculiar factual background, it cannot be said that the order of the High Court quashing the charge memorandum and the corrigendum reserving liberty to Government to take action in accordance with law, calls for interference in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 136 of the Constitution.

Re : Point No. 2

11. In view of the above, we dismiss Civil Appeal No. 8509/2003 as interference with the order dated 6.12.2002 in OJC No. 6001/2002 is not warranted. We allow Civil Appeal No.8510/2003 in part by deleting the adverse remarks against the senior officers of the State (as per earlier para).