The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C) No.747 of 2025 Ramesh Chandra Dethi …. Petitioner Mr. R.C. Swain, Adv. -versus- State of Odisha and Others …. Opposite Parties Mr. D.N. Rath, Advocate for O.P No.5 Mr. A. Tripathy, AGA CORAM: JUSTICE BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY ORDER 18.07.2025 Order No 10. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual/Physical) Mode.
Legal Reasoning
2. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 3. Petitioner has filed the present Writ Petition inter alia with the following prayer:-
Decision
“Therefore, the petitioner humbly prays that this Hon’ble Court may graciously be pleased to admit the writ petition, allow the same and after hearing issue Rule NISI calling upon the Opp. Parties to show cause as to why a writ in the nature of mandamus shall not be issued against them directing them to allow the petitioner to continue in his post as Principal in /charge of Pattamundai Women’s Degree College by quashing Annexure-10 and 14 and if the Opp. Parties show no cause or show insufficient cause then the above Rule may be made absolute against them by quashing Annexure-10 and 14.” 4. It is contended that while continuing as Principal-in-Charge of the College in question vide the impugned order petitioner was // 2 // replaced vice O.P. No.5 to act as Principal-in-Charge of the College. 4.1. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that such an order was passed by O.P. No.4, basing on the letter issued by the Govt. more particularly under Secretary to Govt. in the Higher Education Department on 10.09.2024. It is contended that in letter dated 10.09.2024 enclosed by O.P. No.5 as Annexure-B/5 to the counter affidavit, O.P. No.4 was requested to submit the Action Taken Report, taking into account the enquiry report furnished by the Regional Director of Education, Bhubaneswar. 4.2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that prior to taking such an action in terms of letter dated 10.09.2024, petitioner was never provided with copy of the Enquiry report so furnished by the Regional Director of Education, Bhubaneswar nor he was given an opportunity of hearing to prove his innocence. It is also contended that such report available at Annexure-A/3 to the counter affidavit filed by the State was prepared basing on some complaints made by some private complainants and prior to furnishing such a report, petitioner was never given an opportunity to place his stand. 4.3. It is accordingly contended that basing on such Ex-parte Enquiry Report so furnished by the Regional Director of Education, Under Secretary to Govt. could not have issued the letter under Annexure-B/5, basing on which the impugned order was passed by O.P. No.4 on 27.12.2024 under Annexure-10. 4.4. It is accordingly contended that since petitioner was replaced as Principal-in-charge of the college vice O.P. No.5, basing on the Page 2 of 5 // 3 // Ex-parte Enquiry Report furnished by the Regional Director of Education, such action of O.P. No.4 requires interference of this Court. 4.5. It is also contended that petitioner is continuing as Principal- in-Charge of the College since 18.03.2020 and basing on the Ex- parte enquiry report, petitioner could not have been replaced vice O.P. No.5. It is also contended that by virtue of the interim order passed by this Court on 09.01.2025, petitioner is continuing as Principal-in-Charge of the College as on date. 5. Learned counsel appearing for O.P. No.5 on the other hand made his submission basing on the stand taken in counter affidavit so filed by him. It is contended that since in the report furnished by the Regional Director of Education on 07.03.2024 under Annexure- A/3, it was recommended to replace the petitioner, basing on such enquiry report, Govt. in the department of Higher Education issued the letter on 10.09.2024 under Annexure-B/5. 5.1. Basing on such letter issued by the Govt. under Annexure- B/5, vide order dated 27.12.2024 of O.P. No.4, petitioner was replaced vice O.P. No.5 to act as Principal-in-charge of the College. It is accordingly contended that no illegality or irregularity can be found with the impugned order. 6. Learned Addl. Govt. Advocate on the other hand contended that since allegations were made against the petitioner by some private complainants, Regional Director of Education conducted an enquiry and found fault with the present petitioner and accordingly while submitting the report on 07.03.2024 under Annexure-A/3, Page 3 of 5 // 4 // recommendation was made to replace the petitioner. It is contended that since basing on the enquiry report where the petitioner was found fault with, petitioner has been replaced vice O.P. No.5, no illegality or irregularity can be found with the action of the Govt. in issuing letter dated 10.09.2024 under Annexure-B/3 and consequential action taken by O.P. No.4 vide office order dated 27.12.2024 under Annexure-C/3. 7. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and considering the submissions made, this Court finds that petitioner was allowed to continue as Principal-in-Charge of the College w.e.f. 18.03.2020. It is found that basing on some private complaints, an enquiry was conducted by the Regional Director of Education on 06.12.2023 and the report was submitted on 07.03.2024 by recommending the President of the Governing Body to replace the petitioner as Principal-in-Charge and to appoint some senior faculty of the College in his place. Basing on such report, vide letter dated 10.09.2024 under Annexure-B/3, O.P. No.4 was directed to take appropriate action against the petitioner. 7.1. This Court after going through the enquiry report, finds that even though such an enquiry was conducted in the Chamber of the Principal of Pattamundai Womens’ Degree College but nothing has been indicated that petitioner was given an opportunity to prove his innocence vis-à-vis the complaints made by some private complainants. In absence of such fact being reflected in the enquiry report, it is the view of this Court that basing on such enquiry report, no recommendation could have been made to replace the petitioner from the post of Principal-in-Charge of the College. It is Page 4 of 5 // 5 // also found that the enquiry was conducted and completed on 06.12.2023 and nothing has been indicated in the report regarding supply of the complaints to the petitioner. 7.2. In view of the aforesaid analysis, this Court is of the view that basing on such enquiry report furnished by the Regional Director of Education under Annexure-A/3, no penal action could have been taken against the petitioner. Therefore, this Court is inclined to quash order dated 27.12.2024 so passed by O.P. No.4 under Annexure-10. While quashing the said order, this Court directs O.P. No.1 to cause a fresh enquiry through the Regional Director of Education with regard to the complaints made against him by giving due opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. This Court also directs O.P. No.1 to provide copies of the complaints to the petitioner within a period of 4 (four) weeks from the date of receipt of this order. On being provided with the complaints, petitioner be allowed 4(four) weeks time to file his reply. On receipt of the reply, the enquiry be conducted by giving due opportunity of hearing to the petitioner as well as the complainants. Basing on such enquiry report to be furnished afresh, consequential action can be taken, in which this Court expresses no opinion. 8. The Writ Petition stands disposed of accordingly. (Biraja Prasanna Satapathy) Judge Basudev Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BASUDEV SWAIN Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Date: 21-Jul-2025 11:43:46 Page 5 of 5