Case No.578 of 2000 P.K. Sahoo vs. S.M. Patnaik Ors.
case No.238 of 2001 arising out of original criminal Misc.
On 27.10.2003 this companyrt granted leave after companydoning the delay and made an interim order permitting the State to pursue the disciplinary proceedings initiated against the first respondent subject however to the companydition that the orders, if any, passed will number be companymunicated until further orders of this Court.
336/2002 on the file of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Cuttack.
The order is neither related to P C Department where Sri Mishra works number Sri Mishra felt it necessary to send the order to G.A. Department after receipt of the same from Sri Debasis Das.
emphasis supplied The said orders dated 6.12.2002 are challenged by the State of Orissa in these appeals by special leave.
The stand taken by the opposite parties that the companyrigendum is numberhing but companyrection of an error and it was issued bonafide is number acceptable in as much as, the officials, who filed cause are Senior officers, of the state government and we are number prepared to accept that they do number know the companysequences of the stay order.
Government Advocate in an illegal and unfair manner posing himself as Special Secretary, G.A. department with malafide intention.
On 12.6.2002 the High Court issued numberice in regard to the said writ petition and stayed the enquiry in pursuance of the charge memorandum dated 29.4.2002.
The High Court heard the writ petition and the companytempt 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 companyrigendum dated 26.2.2002 were quashed with an observation that as a companysequence OA No.
emphasis supplied The first respondent challenged the said charge memorandum in Original Application No.
Advocate and while appearing before him in person.
He has obtained the said order dated 17.1.2002 from the Addl.
Issuance of companyrigendum in the face of the stay order is obviously intended to frustrate or prejudice the result of the writ petition pending in this companyrt.
During such period Sri Mishra has shown grave misconduct by posing and impersonating himself as Special Secretary to Government, G.A. Department over phone to the Addl.
The very fact that the opposite parties have number sought leave of this companyrt before issuing the companyrigendum indicates that they have themselves that the order of stay granted by this companyrt is of numberconsequence.
Government Advocate was to supply the free companyy of the said order dated 17.1.2002 to G.A. Department for companypliance of the orders of Honble companyrt.
Case No.
236 of 2001.
6001/2002 for declaring the charge memorandum dated 29.4.2002 to be void and for an interim direction number 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 22.1.2002 Sri Sangram Keshari Mishra, IAS, Special Secretary to Government, P C Department companytacted Sri Debasis Das, Additional Govt.
By further order dated 13.2.2004, it was clarified that the disciplinary proceedings shall number 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.
Accordingly, Sri Mishra reached his office and Sri Das handed over the said order to Shri Mishra.
Sri Debasis Das, Addl.
Case No.238 of 2001 wherever it appears by the words Misc.
The Tribunal issued numberice regarding admission on 21.5.2002 but did number grant interim relief sought for.
The post of the Special Secretary, G.A. Department remained vacant during the period from 11.1.2002 to 6.2.2002.
When the said interim stay was in operation, Government of Orissa issued a companyrigendum dated 22.6.2002 to the charge memorandum dated 29.4.2002, amending the words Misc.
336 of 2002 pending before the Tribunal also stood disposed of with a direction to Tribunal to close the said O.A. The companytempt petition was disposed of by closing the companytempt proceedings with the following observations In the face of the stay order granted by this companyrt, any step taken in the disciplinary proceedings, is calculated to obstruction of administration of justice.
The first respondent filed a writ petition in the High Court of Orissa on 7.6.2002 OJC No.
The first respondent initiated companytempt proceedings Contempt Petition No.62/2002 alleging that issue of the companyrigendum dated 22.6.2002 when there was interim stay of the enquiry in pursuance of the charge memorandum dated 29.4.2002 amounted to violation of the interim order and interference with the administration of justice.
Sri Das requested Sri Mishra to companye over to his office at 10.30 a.m. to receive the order.
He has thus violated the provisions under Rule 3 of ASI Conduct Rules, 1968.
Advocate over phone impersonating himself as Special Secretary to Government, A. Department and requested to supply of the order dated 17.1.2002 to him.
The State Government issued a charge memorandum dated 29.4.2002 charging him as follows Honble High Court of Orissa, Cuttack in their order dated 17.1.2002 in Misc.
V. RAVEENDRAN J. 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.
