LAWS(ORI)-2022-11-110

PRADYUMNA PATTNAIK Vs. STATE OF ODISHA

Decided On November 18, 2022
Pradyumna Pattnaik Appellant
V/S
STATE OF ODISHA Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner, who was working as Additional Public Prosecutor in the Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bhubaneswar, has filed this writ petition seeking to quash the inquiry proceeding and the consequential notification dtd. 26/7/2018 passed by opposite party no.1, by which he has been terminated from service with immediate effect on the ground of allegation. The petitioner has further prayed to offer complete relief in the peculiar facts of the present case.

(2.) The factual matrix of the case, in a nutshell, is that the petitioner, after completion of his LL.B. degree, enrolled himself as an Advocate in the year 1991 and started his practice. Following due process of selection, in the year 1995 he was appointed as Assistant Public Prosecutor. While he was continuing as such, he was given appointment as Associate Lawyer in Government Pleader Panel for the period from 1997 to 2001. Thereafter, he was appointed as Additional Public Prosecutor, Bhubaneswar in the year 2010. His appointment was renewed from time to time. Vide Notification dtd. 23/6/2017 the petitioner was appointed as Additional Public Prosecutor in the Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bhubaneswar, until further orders, and his name figured at Sl. No.7 under the heading of Additional Public Prosecutor. Apart from being a public prosecutor, the petitioner was also having a substantial private practice.

(3.) Mrs. Pami Rath, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner vehemently contended that termination of the petitioner from the post of Additional Public Prosecutor in the Court of ACJM, Bhubaneswar on the ground of allegation with a stigma, having been made without affording him an opportunity of hearing, violates the principle of natural justice, therefore, the same cannot sustain in the eye of law. She further contended that the so called inquiry conducted by opposite party no.2 on 13/6/2018 is just an erroneous appreciation of the factual matrix of the case in hand and in absence of any cogent evidence, documentary or oral, jumping to a conclusion that the petitioner has undermined his position as Additional Public Prosecutor in the Court of ACJM, Bhubaneswar itself suffers from non-application of mind and more so, the copy of such inquiry report has not been served on the petitioner to afford him an opportunity of hearing in compliance of principle of natural justice. Therefore, the order passed on 26/7/2018 terminating the services of the petitioner cannot sustain in the eye of law and is liable to be quashed. It is further contended that the so called allegation, which has been made against the petitioner and copy of which was not provided to him, which he obtained on 2/8/2018 pursuant to the application filed under the Right to Information Act, 2005 dtd. 1/8/2018 and have been placed on record as Annexure-6 series, if scrutinized on its letter and spirit, there is no dereliction of duty or misconduct on the part of the petitioner as Additional Public Prosecutor. As such, the matter under inquiry does not come under the purview of opposite party no.2 inasmuch as the act/ omission as alleged is not connected with the discharge of duty as Additional Public Prosecutor. On the other hand, the petitioner was terminated with a stigma on the basis of a perfunctory enquiry and the petitioner has no other alternative than to approach this Court by filing the present writ petition. On the basis of the documents supplied under the Right to Information Act, 2005 on 2/8/2018, the very initiation of enquiry by the opposite party no.2 is untenable in as much as the allegation made in the complaint dtd. 8/5/2018 is no way connected with the discharge of duty of the petitioner as "Addl. Public Prosecutor". The opposite party no.2, while conducting enquiry failed to appreciate that he lacks inherent jurisdiction to hold such enquiry and, as such, his report is nonest in the eye of law. It is further contended that the petitioner, being Additional Public Prosecutor, is governed by the Odisha Law Officer's Rules, 1971 (for short "Rules, 1971"). Rule-13 of the Rules, 1971 deals with duties of the Law officers like the petitioner and Rule-14 thereof outlines limitations of the officer. Whereas Rule-34 (Part-V) under the heading "Miscellaneous" deals with control over Law Officers. On perusal of the same, administrative control in terms of the Rules, 1971 vests in the District Magistrate and Collector and, as such, opposite party no.2 has no jurisdiction even otherwise to initiate an enquiry and make the recommendation. Thereby, the initiation of the proceeding, the recommendation in the enquiry report and the consequential action terminating the service of the petitioner is without jurisdiction and, as such, the same is arbitrary, mala fide and as a consequence thereof, the same is liable to be quashed.