TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2010 (10) TMI 1024
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e No.578 of 2000 - P.K. Sahoo vs. S.M. Patnaik & Ors.) have been pleased to dispose of the matter with regard to stay with a direction to the State Government in G.A. Department to file counter before the Hon'ble CAT, Cuttack. Sri Debasis Das, Addl. Government Advocate was to supply the free copy of the said order dated 17.1.2002 to G.A. Department for compliance of the orders of Hon'ble court. On 22.1.2002 Sri Sangram Keshari Mishra, IAS, Special Secretary to Government, P & C Department contacted Sri Debasis Das, Additional Govt. Advocate over phone impersonating himself as Special Secretary to Government, G.A. Department and requested to supply of the order dated 17.1.2002 to him. Sri Das requested Sri Mishra to come over to his....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 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". 3. The first respondent initiated contempt proceedings (Contempt Petition No.62/2002) alleging that issue of the corrigendum dated 22.6.2002 when there was interim stay of the enquiry in pursuance of the charge memorandum dated 29.4.2002 amounted to violat....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ir action and warn that in future they will not venture to do any thing which may have the tendency to interfere with the administration of justice." (emphasis supplied) The said orders dated 6.12.2002 are challenged by the State of Orissa in these appeals by special leave. 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 clarified that the disciplinary proceedings shall not stand in the way of the promotion of first respondent due t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s issued ignoring the fact that there was stay of all further proceedings in regard to the enquiry and the corrigendum could not have been issued in regard to charge memorandum without the leave of the court. The logic of the reasoning of the High Court was that if the corrigendum dated 22.6.2002 had to be ignored as it was issued in violation of the interim order of stay dated 12.6.2002, the charge dated 29.4.2002 would be false and incorrect as admittedly the first respondent did not receive the copy of the order in Misc. case No.238/2001, as there was no proceedings with the number "Misc. case No. 238/2001"; that consequently the charge obviously had no leg to stand; and the charge memorandum was ex facie erroneous and baseless and was l....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....respondent was in no way concerned with either Misc. Case No. 238 of 2001 or Misc. Case No.236/2001 on the file of the High Court and he had nothing to do with the order dated 17.1.2002 therein. Receiving a free copy of the said order would not in any way benefit him or adversely affect anyone else; (d) The charge against him is so absurd and preposterous that it is liable to be rejected outright, and (e) The background facts would disclose the hand of one P.K. Nayak, IAS, who is inimically disposed towards the first respondent. Though there appears to be some merit in the said contentions of the first respondent, it is unnecessary to examine the correctness of these contentions as normally a charge sheet is not quashed prior to the conduct....