Subordinate officers acting under superior directions without mala fides or personal gain cannot be held liable for misconduct.

The Petitioner, a senior officer of the Odisha Superior Judicial Service and then Registrar (Judicial), was subjected to disciplinary proceedings (D.P. No. 04 of 2021).

Two primary charges were leveled: first, that pages 116/C to 152/C of an administrative file regarding promotions went missing while in his custody.

Second, that he improperly suggested the invocation of Rule 38(10) of the 2019 Rules to grant promotions, bypassing the Departmental Promotion Committee.

Following an inquiry report that found him guilty, the Disciplinary Authority imposed a major penalty of withholding two increments with cumulative effect on February 23, 2023.

The Petitioner challenged this order, asserting that the files were moved under the directions of the then Chief Justice and were handled by a Special Committee, thus remaining out of his exclusive control.

The Court applied Rule 3 of the Odisha Government Servants Conduct Rules, 1959 regarding integrity and devotion to duty.

Rule 13(vi-A) of the OCS (CCA) Rules, 1962 regarding penalties.

Internal departmental notings do not constitute a final decision or "law" but are merely expressions of opinion for the benefit of the decision-making authority.

Reliance was placed on Mahadeo and others v. Sovan Devi and others (2022).

While judicial review of disciplinary actions is limited under Articles 226/227, interference is mandatory if findings are perverse or based on "no evidence" as established in Union of India v. H.C. Goel and State of Andhra Pradesh v. Chitra Venkata Rao.

The Court found the inquiry report fundamentally flawed as the original file allegedly missing pages was never produced, nor was a movement register submitted to prove the Petitioner had exclusive custody during the relevant period.

The Court noted that the departmental witness (PW-1) admitted the Petitioner derived no personal benefit and that the missing pages were merely copies.

Regarding the second charge, the Court observed that the Petitioner’s notes explicitly stated they were prepared "as per kind direction of Your Lordship," a standard practice in the Registry.

Since the final decision rested with the Chief Justice/Acting Chief Justice, the Petitioner could not be held liable for the exercise of that authority’s prerogative.

The Court critiqued the inquiry officer for shifting the burden of proof, stating that the delinquent’s failure to "prove innocence" cannot substitute for the department’s failure to prove guilt.

The absence of mala fides or corrupt motive rendered the finding of "misconduct" perverse.

The Court quashed the order of punishment dated February 23, 2023, and the underlying inquiry report, directing the Opposite Parties to restore all consequential service benefits to the Petitioner before his superannuation on July 31, 2026.