SUSANTA KUMAR SATAPATHY Vs. STATE OF ODISHA
HIGH COURT OF ORISSA
Susanta Kumar Satapathy
STATE OF ODISHA
Click here to view full judgement.
(1.) The petitioner by way of this writ petition, assails the judgment and order dated 30.10.2018 passed by the Odisha Administrative Tribunal, Cuttack Bench, Cuttack in O.A. No.2330 (C) of 2017 in holding that there is substantial compliance to Rule-29 of the OCS (C.C.& A) Rules, 1962 in the instant case and held that the punishment of one Black Mark cannot be treated as excessive to the delinquency committed by the applicant.
(2.) The factual conspectus of the present petition hovers around the order of punishment imposed by the Disciplinary Authority/Opposite Party No.4 which is alleged to have been passed in a mechanical manner without application of mind. The petitioner while posted as Officer-in-Charge (OIC), Naugaon Police Station in the District of Jagatsinghpur, was served with an Office Order vide Memo No.381 dated 26.06.2012 issued by the Superintendent of Excise, Jagatsinghpur (Sub-Collector, Jagatsingpur), wherein it was mentioned that the Collector and District Magistrate, Jagatsinghpur has been pleased to allow shifting of the left stock of the IMFL and Beer from Mundal IMFL "OFF" Shop to Jagatsinghpur IMFL "OFF" Shop within a period of seven days due to a situation of exigencies. During such exercise, the petitioner was directed to remain present at the time of shifting, which is quite evident from the Office Order dated 26.06.2012. In fact, the Police Manual does not mandate through Rules or standing instructions prescribing a Police Officer need to seek prior permission of the highest authority to remain present at the spot for providing necessary security. Curiously, in the instant case, the petitioner remained present at the spot of shifting the shop in compliance with the order passed by the District Magistrate. Since the order was only to give security to the E.P. Holder and the OIC of the Police Station was only to accompany the Excise Authorities when they asked for such security.
(3.) Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that on receiving information from the concerned Excise Inspector and in compliance with the Office Order dated 26.06.2012issued by the Collector and District Magistrate and the Sub-Collector (Superintendent of Excise), Jagatsinghpur, the petitioner had to move to the spot of shifting of Foreign Liquor shop. It is also clear from the record that the petitioner was not involved in shifting process but the E.P. holder and the Excise Staff were engaged in the shifting process. During the said shifting process, due to some old dispute between the villagers and the E.P. holder, the villagers obstructed the shifting process, even though the excise staff and the petitioner tried to convince the villagers by way of showing the order of the Collector and Excise Superintendent (Sub-Collector). They did not get pacified and sat in front of the loaded truck which forced the excise staff and the petitioner to leave the place.;
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.