Orissa HC Sets Aside Disciplinary Action Against Ex-Registrar General Who Registered Suo Moto Case Without Chief Justice's Approval

In a major relief to a former Registrar General, the Orissa High Court on Friday exonerated him from all disciplinary actions taken against him by the administrative side of the Court for allegedly registering a suo moto writ petition, purportedly being directed by a Division Bench of the Court, without the approval of the then Chief Justice.

While setting aside all the charges levelled against the fourth senior-most judicial officer of the State, the Division Bench of Justice Sangam Kumar Sahoo and Justice Sibo Sankar Mishra observed –

“We are of the humble view that even if the action taken by the petitioner in approving the note sheet can be stated to be an error but to err is human. Making mistakes is a natural and expected part of being human and cannot be termed as gross misconduct, when there is no violation of definite Rule/Law/Procedure and there was nothing to gain by the petitioner by putting his career at risk at the displeasure of the Hon'ble Chief Justice.”

Case Background

Malaya Ranjan Dash (the petitioner), a judicial officer in the cadre of District Judge (Super-time Scale), was posted as the Registrar General of the High Court on June 05, 2020. While working as such, on February 26, 2021, he received an order passed by one Division Bench dated February 24, 2021, along with an official note-sheet from the Deputy Registrar (Judicial) ['the DR (J)'].

Through the note-sheet, the DR (J) urged the petitioner to approve the same in order to give effect to the direction passed by the Division Bench, which had asked the Registry to supply the copy of its order along with brief to certain Senior Advocates, appointed as Amicus Curiae in that case, by February 26, 2021. Such direction could not have been complied with in the letter and spirit without registering a suo moto writ petition.

In order to comply with the direction, the petitioner being the Registrar General promptly endorsed the note-sheet and registered a suo moto case. However, the then Chief Justice allegedly expressed displeasure over the manner in which the petitioner proceeded on to register the suo moto case without obtaining his approval or at least, bringing the matter to his notice.

Subsequently, he was removed from the Registry and posted as the District Judge of a southern district of Odisha. He was served with a show cause notice as to why and under which circumstances, he registered the suo moto writ petition.

Interestingly, along with the show-cause notice, the delinquent officer was also provided with a copy of the order of the said Division Bench. The petitioner contended that it is for the first time he came to know that the junior Judge sitting on the Bench had given a dissenting order while disagreeing with the conclusions reached at by the senior Judge on the Bench, which was later directed to be placed before a third Judge.

A departmental proceeding (DP) was initiated against him on the grounds of gross misconduct, dereliction in duty and administrative indiscipline while dealing with judicial records, and failure maintain absolute honesty and integrity. Subsequently, an Inquiry Committee was constituted to conduct inquiry on the charges levelled against him.

The Inquiry Committee found him guilty of gross misconduct, dereliction of duty and administrative indiscipline while dealing with judicial records, but he was exonerated from the charge of failure to maintain absolute integrity and honesty. He was penalised with the punishment of reduction to the lower grade in the pay, i.e. 'Selection Grade'.

It was also directed that the pay of the petitioner would be fixed at the initial scale of the Selection Grade, and his upgradation to the next higher grade of Super-time Scale would be considered only after five years. Being aggrieved by the imposition of the aforesaid major penalty, the petitioner impugned the findings of the Inquiry Authority before the High Court.

Contentions of Parties

Senior Advocate Budhadev Routray appearing for the petitioner argued that the order dated February 24, 2021 was passed in the open Court by a Division Bench and it was not varied till the date of registration of the suo motu writ petition. Therefore, such an order becomes operative even without the signatures of the Judges.

He further contended that admittedly the copy of the order was sent after dictation in open Court, unaccompanied with the dissenting order which was penned subsequently. The note-sheet was approved for registration of suo moto writ petition during the last hour of the day of its stipulated date of compliance on good faith and there is no mala fide intention on the part of the petitioner or violation of any definite rule or law.

He also argued that the order of the Division Bench was valid in the eyes of law being dictated in open Court and communicated through proper channel. There was no scope for the petitioner to be sceptical regarding the veracity of the order, and if at all it was an error, it cannot be termed as 'grave misconduct' particularly when there is no violation of any definite rule/law/procedure.

On the other side, Advocate General Pitambar Acharya appearing for the State fairly conceded that there is no rule or guidelines that the permission of Chief Justice is a must for registration of the suo motu writ petition, despite of an open-court judicial order. Therefore, no fault can be found with the petitioner in approving the note placed before him relating to registration of the case.

He fairly stated that in the factual scenario, there is nothing to suggest any wrongful intention or ill motive on the part of the petitioner, but it may be an act of negligence or errors of judgment which is difficult to be dubbed as gross misconduct, dereliction of duty and administrative indiscipline.

Court's Findings

The Court, during the hearing of the case, had asked the Registry to produce the original case records of the case which was before the said Division Bench and also the records of the disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner. After perusing the records, produced in sealed covers, the Court strikingly observed –

“Perusal of the original records produced before us in the sealed cover shockingly revealed certain aspects, which was confronted to the Registry Officials present in the Court and also to the learned Advocate General, however, none could satisfactorily answer to the query of the Court. We refrain ourselves from delving upon those aspects, rather would confine ourselves to the limited issues prominently highlighted before us.”

After examining the order-sheets of the said Division Bench, the Court discovered that the dissenting view of one of the Judges to the of the said Bench only came to be recorded on March 02, 2021. Therefore, on February 26, 2021, when the note-sheet was put up before the petitioner, there was no dissent existed on record, rather the proceeding was conducted in the open Court on February 24, 2021 and the order, that was dictated in open Court, had been holding field till one of the Judges dissented almost a week after.

Then the Court proceeded to examine whether there is any rule/law/standing order which mandates the Registrar General to obtain approval of the Chief Justice before registering a suo moto case. For this purpose, the Court asked the Registrar (Judicial), Special Officer (Administration) and certain section officers to trace out the relevant rule/law/standing order prescribing the procedure.

However, none of the officers could find any such written rule which made it obligatory on the part of the Registrar General to seek Chief Justice's order before formally registering a suo moto case on the basis of a judicial order.

Justice Sahoo, who authored the judgment, cited the work of Sir Ivor Jennings to hold that a practice (in this case, the practice of taking Chief Justice's permission for registration of suo moto case) alone is not enough, it must be normative.

“If there is no codified procedure or rule and no written practice or direction and the petitioner just approved the note sheet placed by Deputy Registrar (Judicial) basing on an unsigned order which was pronounced in open Court and as we have held that such order can be legally operative, it cannot be said it was an act of deliberate misconduct on the part of the petitioner as held by the Inquiring Authority,” he held.

The Court duly noted the lack of allegation of any extraneous influences on the petitioner leading him to approve the note-sheet placed by the DR (J). It further said –

“An important aspect to be kept in mind is that the order as was placed before the petitioner was valid in the eyes of law being dictated in open Court and communicated through proper channel and there was no scope for the petitioner at that stage to see the order of the Court in distrust.”

It also ruled that either through a Certified Standing Order or in the service Regulations, an act or omission is to be prescribed as 'misconduct', and it is not open for the authority to fish out some conduct as 'misconduct' and punish a delinquent even though the alleged misconduct would not be comprehended in any of the enumerated misconduct.

Having regard for all the aspects of factual scenario and the governing laws, the Court reached the following conclusion –

“We are of the view that the action of the petitioner approving the note sheet placed by Deputy Registrar (Judicial) for registration of Suo Motu proceeding as per the order passed by the Division Bench in open Court, cannot be said to be gross misconduct, dereliction of duty and administrative indiscipline and the error of judgment or laches or inadvertent mistake, if any on the part of the petitioner in the background of surrounding circumstances which seems to have been done in good faith and especially in the light of his past service record, there is no escape from the conclusion that the punishment imposed on the petitioner is grossly and shockingly disproportionate.”

As a corollary, the Court found the findings of the Inquiry Authority to be 'perverse' and 'untenable' in the eyes of law. Accordingly, it set aside the impugned order and exonerated the petitioner from all the charges. It also asked the State to extend all the service benefits attached to the post of a District Judge (Super-time Scale) with effect from December 21, 2022 to the petitioner.

Case Title: Malaya Ranjan Dash v. State of Odisha & Ors.

Case No: W.P.(C) No. 28874 of 2023

Date of Judgment: May 02, 2025

Counsel for the Petitioner: Mr. Budhadev Routray, Senior Advocate

Counsel for the State: Mr. Pitambar Acharya, Advocate General assisted by Mr. Aurobinda Mohanty, Additional Standing Counsel

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ori) 70

Click Here To Read/Download Order