Subhasree Pattanaik vs Union Of India & Anr.

O R D E R

i.

Quash the impugned order of charge sheet dt. 17.08.2017 at Annexure A/3, order of punishment of dismissal dt. 21.8.17 as at Annexure A/8 and the order dt. 12.12.17 in appeal as at Annexure A/10.

ii.

Direct/order that the applicant shall be reinstated into service with all consequential service benefit.

OA NO. 12/2018 iii. Pass any other order(s), direction(s) deemed fit and proper.

"ARTICLE - 1 Smt. Subhasree Pattanaik, LDC while working at ARC Charbatia, on 27.10.2015 at around 10.45 AM had reportedly attempted to commit suicide by jumping into Puri Canal from a bridge on the NH 5 along with her one year old daughter Sai Shriya Mohanty. As reported in the FIR, she first threw her one year old daughter into the canal and subsequently she jumped into the canal. She was fortunately rescued by the locals who saw her jump but her daughter got drowned and died. The dead body of the girl child was found on the next day i.e. 28.10.2015 from a canal near Pipli under Pipli police station.

2.

This saddening incident got attention of the local news channels and newspapers as well wherein Smt. Subhasree Pattanaik was shown and referred to as working with Aviation Research Centre located at Charbatia. There were also reports of alleged marital discord with her husband in the news column which forced her to take the extreme step. Being involved in the act of attempting suicide which led to disclosure of her organization, she has certainly brought a bad name to the serving organization.

3.

By the aforesaid act of omission and commission, the said Smt. Subhasree Pattnaik has acted in a manner which is highly unbecoming of a Govt. servant thus violated Rule 3(1) (iii) of CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964.

ARTICLE - II Smt. Subhasree Pattanaik, LDC while working at ARC Charbatia, on 27.10.2015 at around 10.45 AM had jumped into Puri Canal from a bridge on the NH - 5 along with her one year old daughter Sai Shriya Mohantywith the intention to commit suicide. She was however saved by the locals who were taking a bath in the canal. But this act caused death of her one year old daughter who was siphoned off in the canal and the dead body was discovered on the next day near Pipli.

2.

An FIR was lodged in the Balianta Police Station vide No. 281(27) dated 28.10.2015 and Smt. Subhasree Pattanaik was booked u/s 302 and 309 of the IPC for such criminal offence. Following the incident, she was placed under suspension w.e.f. 29.10.2015. The IIC of Balianta Police Station, Bhubaneswasr when requested for the status of investigation of the case vide this office letter dated 13.01.2016, informed about her being at large/pending arrest vide their letter No. 797/BLAPS dated 28.03.2016. This indicated that she was absconding OA NO. 12/2018 since the incident and avoiding Police arrest thereby causing hindrance in the police investigation.

3.

By the aforesaid act of omission and commission, the said Smt. Subhasree Pattanaik has acted in a manner which is highly unbecoming of a Govt. Servant thus, violated Rule 3(1) (iii) of CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964.

ARTICLE - III Smt. Subhasree Pattanaik, LDC while working at ARC Charbatia, on 27.10.2015 at around 10.45 AM had reportedly tried to commit suicide by jumping into the Puri Canal from a bridge on the NH- 5 along with her one year old daughter Sai Shriya Mohanty. As per the version of an informant (mentioned in the FIR) she first threw her one year old daughter into the canal and then she herself jumped into the canal. She was however saved by the locals and then taken to Capital Hospital, Bhubaneswar for medical treatment. Her daughter died in the incident whose dead body was found on the next day i.e. 28.10.2015 near Pipli under Pipli Police Station.

2.

Following the incident a FIR No. 281(27) dated 28.10.2015 was registered by the Balianta Police Station, Bhubaneswar wherein she was listed as accused and booked under section 302/309 of the IPC.

3.

On 28.10.2015, Smt. Subhasree Pattanaik had applied for grant of leave to her unit officer referring the incident. She however did not intimate the fact of being accused in the above criminal case/FIR to her office.

4.

By the aforesaid act of omission and commission, the said Smt. Subhasree Pattanaik has failed to maintain absolute integrity and acted in a manner which is highly unbecoming of a Govt. Servant thus, violated Rule 3(1) (i) & (ii) of CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964.

"As regards to Article - I, the PO prosecuted that the name of the department had been defamed being highlighted in the local news channels and print media by the incident that she was trying to commit suicide with her daughter in which her daughter died and she survived. In her reply, the CO stated that she was in a state of depression due to the problems developed in her married life and the incident occurred on 27th October 2015 was purely an accidental case and nothing else. She insisted that the news published in the print media or shown in the electronic media may not be accurate and reliable always. She further added that she had not given any oral/written statement about the organization (ARC). She further declared that being a self employed lady she would not take such a drastic step, however, the matter being subjudice in the Hon'ble Court the real fact would come to notice after the final judgment.

Although, the CO had mentioned about the suicide attempt by her in the leave application submitted on 28th October 2015 and in the reply submitted on 7th November, 2016 in response to Memo dated 17.08.2016, in her defence brier she declared that the incident was purely an accidental case and nothing else.

Further, the matter being sub judice in the Hon'ble Court, an inference cannot be drawn at the present circumstance and whether the case was suicidal or an accident may be left on the final decision of the Hon'ble Court. There is no OA NO. 12/2018 witness on behalf of the PO. The CO submitted that she had not informed any media persons or any other person about her identity or identity of the organization where she was working. Therefore, the Article - I of the charge framed didn't substantiate.

Hence, the charge framed in Article - 1 is not proved.

As regards to Article - II, it was alleged that the CO was not cooperating/causing hurdle in Police investigation by absconding since the incident and by avoiding Police arrest based on the letter submitted by the IIC of the Balianta Police Station, Bhubaneswar. The CO had declined the charge of being at large by stating that she had continuously being staying in her mother's house at Village Kotuan, PO; Arilo, via Somepur, PS-Kishore Nagar, Dist- Cuttack. She further produced the copies of all the letters sent by registered post/by hand from ARC Charbatia, which she had received while staying in her mother's house. This indicates that she had been continuously staying in her mother's house. Hence the charge framed in Article - II is not proved.

As regards to Article - III, the CO was booked for the offences of murder and attempt to commit suicide u/s 302/309 of the IPC by the Balianta Police Station, Bhubaneswar as per FIR No. 281(27) dated 28.10.2015. She had requested for grant of leave vide her application dated 28.10.2015 but failed to intimate the fact of being accused in the criminal case to her office. In her reply, she had declined the charge by stating that she was unaware of the fact that she had been accused by the police for any offences at that time as she had not been intimated by Police in writing to her. So she was not having any official/legal ground to give intimation of being accused in the criminal case to her office while applying for leave. She came to know the fact only after her arrest by the police on her joining in ARC, Charbatia. As the CO submitted the leave application on the same date on which the FIR had been lodged i.e. on 28.10.2015 and no documents are available to show that the application had been submitted after she was booked u/s 302/309 of the IPC, a conclusion cannot be drawn that she had knowingly suppressed the fact of being booked u/s 302/309 by the Police in her leave application.

Hence, the charge framed in the Article III is not proved.

Conclusion/Findings The question still remains unresolved whether the CO had attempted to commit suicide by jumping into Puri Canal from a bridge on the NH-5 along with her one year old daughter in Annexure III of the memorandum dated 17/08/2015 issued to the CO, comprising of newspaper cutting of some local newspapers, copy of FIR No. 281(27) dated 28.10.2015 lodged in Balianta Police Station, Bhubaneswar, leave application dated 28.10.2015 submitted by the CO and the reply dated 07.11.2016 submitted by the CO in response of the above mentioned memorandum, it indicates that the CO, Smt. Subhasree Pattanaik, LDC, ARC, Charbatia had made an attempt to commit suicide on 27.10.2015. However, during the inquiry, the CO asserverated that the incident occurred on 27.10.2015 was purely an accident and nothing else during the cross examination by the PO held on 16.03.2017 as well as in the defence brief submitted by her on 30.03.2017. Further as the matter is subjudice in the Hon'ble High Court an inference can only be drawn after the pronouncement of the final judgment by the Hon'ble Court in the above matter. So far as the charges framed against her in Article I, Article II OA NO. 12/2018 and Article III are concerned, these have not been proved based on the facts/records produced during the course of inquiry."

"Subsequent to the departmental enquiry initiated against Smt. Subhasree Pattanaik, L D C , A R C C h a r b a t i a v i d e i s s u e o f c h a r g e m e m o r a n d u m N o . ARC/CBT/P.II/VI/PF(SP)/2010-12867 dtd. 17.08.16, the enquiry proceedings have been completed and the Inquiry Officer (IO) has submitted the Inquiry Report. A copy of the Inquiry Report is sent herewith with the following observations:-

(i)

Article - I of the charge framed against Smt. Subhasree Pattanaik, LDC is regarding bringing disrepute to the organization by her act of attempt to suicide on 27.10.2015 causing death of her daughter. This act on the part of the Smt. Subhasree Pattanaik caused publication of the incident in the local newspapers and evidence to this effect is available in the form of clippings from the local news papers which is the part of the listed documents in the memorandum of charge dated 17.08.16. Morevoer, Smt. Pattanaik herself admitted the attempt made by her to suicide and having lost her daughter due to such attempt in her application dated 28.10.15 which is available in the listed documents in the Memorandum of charges dated 17.08.16.

Undersigned, therefore, disagrees with the finding of the Inquiry Officer with regards to Article - I to the effect that she had not made any oral or written statement to the print or electronic media for which, the Inquiry Officer has concluded that Article of charge I is not proved. Even if the charged officer has not given statement to the media, then also her action to attempt suicide by jumping into the canal with her daughter has caused publication of the incident in the local newspaper identifying the charge officer as Smt. Subhasree Pattanaik and mentioning her employment in the organization. Therefore, the act of the charge officer is un-becoming and her association with the organization has caused disrepute to the organization. In disagreement to the finding of the inquiry officer, undersigned gives opportunity to the charged officer to submit her written representation or submission.

(ii)

The charge in the article II is that the charged officer was at large and not cooperating with the police investigation with regard to her act of suicide and causing death of her daughter. The fact that copies of FIR No. 281(27) dated 283.10.15 and subsequent letters dated 28.03.16 and 07.06.16 from Balianta Police Station, which are listed at Sl. No. 2, 3 & 4 of the list of documents, clearly indicates that Smt. Subhasree Pattanaik after filing of the FIR dated 28.10.15 was at large and was an accused in the case.

The Inquiry officer has relied on the documents provided by the Charged Officer and on the claim of the charged officer to the effect that 09 documents from the office through registered post and by hand have been received at her place of stay.

Undersigned disagrees with the Inquiry Officer who solely relies on the defence documents from the charged officer for the reason that receipt of documents at her place of stay from the office by post or by hand does not OA NO. 12/2018 dispute the contents of the letters from Balianta Police Stating that accused i.e. Smt. Subhasree Pattanaik was at large. The defence documents adduced by the charged officer also do not prove that all the documents sent by post or by hand have been received at her place of stay by herself. Undersigned also finds no reason to dispute the contents of the letter from Balianta Police, especially the letters dtd. 28.03.16 & 07.06.2016 which say that the charged officer was at large. Suicidal act of the charged officer causing death of her daughter, filing of the FIR to this effect and subsequent two letters from Balianta Police, when analysed in combination gives indication that Smt. Pattanaik was deliberately staying away from Police, thereby causing hurdle in the Police investigation and therefore, disagrees with the findings of the Inquiry Officer concluding that Article - II is not proved.

(iii)

The incident on suicidal attempts by the charged officer causing death of her daughter on 27.10.15, filing of FIR in Balianta Police Station on dated 28.10.15 and application dated 28.10.15 from the charged officer admitting the act of suicidal attempt and death of her daughter indicate the chain of the happenings leading to evidence that the charged officer knew about the FIR filed on 28.10.15 & she failed to intimate about this to the office. Undersigned therefore disagrees with the findings of the inquiry officer concluding that Article III is not proved."

"09.

From the evidence of the prosecution, it appears that none of the witnesses had seen the accused throwing the child to canal and jumped to canal to commit suicide. The accused pleaded that the child went to the canal for which she jumped to the canal to save her child. The plea of the accused appears to be probable when none of the prosecution witnesses had seen her throwing the child to canal and jumping to the canal to commit suicide. Offences of murder of Sai Shriya Mohanty and attempt to commit suicide are not provide by the prosecution. Prosecution has failed to prove the charge U/s 302/309 IPC I hold the accused not guilty thereunder and acquit her U/s 235(1) Cr. PC. The accused is set at liberty forthwith."