CUTTACK: The Orissa High Court has quashed disciplinary proceedings and punishment imposed on senior judicial officer Lalit Kumar Dash, holding that the findings against him were based on “no evidence and unsupported presumptions”.
A division bench comprising Justices Manash Ranjan Pathak and Sibo Sankar Mishra, set aside the inquiry report and the order dated February 23, 2023, that had imposed the penalty of withholding two increments with cumulative effect on Dash.
Quashing both the inquiry report and punishment order, the bench directed high court authorities to restore all consequential service benefits to Dash before his retirement on July 31, 2026. He is presently serving as Additional-cum-Special Judge (Vigilance), Balasore.
Dash, an officer of the Odisha Superior Judicial Service, had joined service in 1997 and was appointed registrar (judicial) of the Orissa High Court on January 13, 2020. After his transfer, disciplinary proceedings were initiated against him over alleged disappearance of documents from an administrative file and alleged irregular recommendations in matters relating to promotions of court staff.
According to the case records, Dash was asked to explain the alleged missing of documents from two pages in an administrative file. His explanation was found unsatisfactory, following which a departmental proceeding was initiated in 2021. The inquiry officer later held him guilty, and the disciplinary authority imposed the punishment in 2023.
However, the bench found serious flaws in the disciplinary findings. “The findings on charges relating to administrative indiscipline, misconduct and failure to maintain integrity on account of alleged missing documents are vitiated by non-consideration of material evidence, reliance on presumptions and shifting of burden of proof. Hence, it’s a case of no evidence,” the bench observed.
The court also rejected allegations relating to Dash’s recommendation for invoking Rule 38(10) of the High Court of Orissa Staff Rules in matters concerning promotions of secretaries and personal assistants. “The petitioner did not conceal the source of the directions. On the contrary, he openly incorporated in the official note that the actions were being taken under the directions of the Acting Chief Justice. Such conduct militates against any inference of covert or dishonest intent,” the judgment stated.
The bench further noted that there was no finding of corruption, personal gain or deliberate manipulation against the officer and held that the punishment imposed was disproportionate.
