Pramod Kumar Mishra vs. State Of Odisha

Facts

The petitioner, Pramod Kumar Mishra, filed a writ petition challenging an order of reversion passed by the Commissioner of CT & GST, Odisha, Cuttack on 15.03.2021. The petitioner contended that this order, which reverted him by way of punishment, was illegal, arbitrary, and in violation of the CCA Rules, 1962 and principles of natural justice. He sought quashing of the order and reinstatement to his former post, with the period of suspension treated as leave. The petitioner had filed an appeal against the reversion order before the Principal Secretary, Department of Finance, Government of Odisha, which was pending without a decision as of the date of the writ petition.

Held

The Court disposed of the writ petition at the admission stage without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case. The Court directed the Principal Secretary, Department of Finance, Government of Odisha, to consider the petitioner's appeal dated 10.10.2021 (Annexure-10) within a period of three months from the date of production of a certified copy of the order. This consideration was to be done after affording the petitioner an opportunity of personal hearing, in accordance with law. The Court also clarified that it was open for the petitioner to file an Interlocutory Application (I.A.) seeking interim relief before the appellate authority, and if filed, the appellate authority was to consider it on its own merits. The appellate authority was further directed to consider the appeal along with any I.A. within the stipulated time and dispose of it by passing a speaking and reasoned order, communicating the decision to the petitioner within ten days thereafter.

Key Issues

1. Whether the order of reversion passed by the Commissioner of CT & GST, Odisha, Cuttack, dated 15.03.2021, is illegal, arbitrary, and in violation of the CCA Rules, 1962 and principles of natural justice? Petitioner's arguments: The petitioner argued that the reversion order was passed in gross violation of the CCA Rules, 1962 and principles of natural justice. He further submitted that his appeal against this order was pending before the Principal Secretary, Department of Finance, Government of Odisha, who had not yet taken a decision. The petitioner requested a direction for the appellate authority to consider his appeal within a stipulated period, including the possibility of granting interim relief. Revenue's arguments: The State submitted that since the entire dispute was pending before the appellate authority, it would be in the best interest of justice for that authority to decide the petitioner's grievance petition in accordance with law within a stipulated period. The State had no objection to a direction being issued for the appellate authority to decide the matter after affording the petitioner a personal hearing.