The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C) No.15312 of 2011 Pramod Kumar Pradhan …. Petitioner(s) Mr. Shibashish Misra, Adv. -versus- …. The management of Angul United Central Co- operative Bank Ltd., Angul & Ors. Opposite Party(s) Mr. Baidhar Sahoo, Adv. for O.P.1 CORAM: DR. JUSTICE S.K. PANIGRAHI
Decision
Order No. ORDER 16.08.2024 06. 1. This matter is taken up through hybrid arrangement. 2. In filing this Writ Petition, the Petitioner has made the following prayer:- “It is therefore, most respectfully prayed that Your Lordships would be graciously pleased to admit the writ application, issue rule NISI in the nature of writ of certiorari/mandamus calling upon the Opposite Party to show cause as to why the charge sheets dated 26.10.2009 and 22.03.2010 as at Annexure-3 and 8 respectively, Enquiry Reports, both dated 16.10.2010 as at Annexuers-16 and 17 and order of termination dated 30.10.2010 as at Annexure-13, shall not be quashed and if the Opposite Parties, more particularly the Opp. Parties No.1 and 2 fail to show cause or shows insufficient cause, the said Charge Sheets, Enquiry Reports and the Order of Termination as at Annexures-2, 8, 13, 16 and 18 and may kindly be quashed. the Opp.parties And further, the Hon’ble Court be pleased to direct the period of suspension i.e. from 09.12.2009 to 30.10.2010 as on duty and further direct the Opp.parties No.1 and 2 to treat to Page 1 of 12 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: AYASKANTA JENA Designation: Personal Assistant Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa Date: 20-Aug-2024 10:46:36 pay the petitioner all consequential benefits, what he would have got had he not been suspended and / or terminated w.e.f. 30.10.2010.” 3. At the outset, learned counsel for the Opposite Party No.1 submits that this Court has earlier decided the similar issue by the judgment dated 31.07.2024 passed in W.P.(C) No.18641 of 2020 (Ch. Ajeet Kumar Das and Ors. Vrs. Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Odisha and Ors.). He, therefore, submits that this Writ Petition may be disposed of in the light of the judgment passed in the case of Ch. Ajeet Kumar Das and Ors. Vrs. Registrar, Co- operative Societies, Odisha and Ors. (supra). 4. Learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that he has no objection, if this matter is disposed of in the light of the judgment passed in the case of Ch. Ajeet Kumar Das and Ors. Vrs. Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Odisha and Ors. (supra). 5. On perusal of the records and judgment passed in the case of Ch. Ajeet Kumar Das and Ors. Vrs. Registrar, Co- operative Societies, Odisha and Ors. (supra), it appears that similar issue has already been decided by this Court in the said judgment, which was disposed of on 31.07.2024. the ordering portion of the said judgment is as follows:- Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: AYASKANTA JENA Designation: Personal Assistant Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa Date: 20-Aug-2024 10:46:36 “The short question for adjudication in the instant petition is that whether the Opp. Party No.2/bank is amenable to the writ jurisdiction of Court in the instant writ petition which involves a service dispute. Page 2 of 12 Article 12 of the Constitution of India has defined the term "State" as follows: "12. Definition.--In this Part, unless the context otherwise requires, "the State" includes the Government and Parliament of India and the Government and the Legislature of each of the States and all local or other authorities within the territory of India or under the control of the Government of India." The constitutional history reveals that the term “other authorities” as referenced in Article 12 has been the subject of extensive judicial examination. This examination has led to the establishment of a comprehensive body of jurisprudence dedicated to its interpretation. The evolution of this legal framework highlights the significance of “other authorities” in defining the scope of constitutional rights and governmental powers. In the case of Ajay Hasia and others v. Khalid Mujib,1 a Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court, while approving the tests laid down in the case of Ramana Dayaram Shetty v. International Airport Authority of India & Ors.,2 as to when a corporation can be said to be an instrumentality or agency of the government, observed which runs thus:- “The tests for determining as to when a corporation can be said to be an instrumentality or agency of government may now be culled out from the judgment in the International Airport Authority case. These tests are not conclusive or clinching, but they are merely indicative indicia which have to be used with care and caution, because while stressing the necessity of a wide meaning to be placed on the expression "other authorities", it must be realised that it should not be stretched so far as to bring in every autonomous body which has some nexus with the government within the sweep of the expression. A wide enlargement of the meaning must be tempered by a wise limitation. We may summarise the relevant tests gathered from the decision in the International Airport Authority case as follows: (1) One thing is clear that if the entire share capital of the corporation is held by Government, it would go a long way towards indicating that the corporation is an instrumentality or agency of Government ; (2) Where the financial assistance of the State is so much as to meet almost entire expenditure of the corporation, it would afford some indication of the corporation being impregnated with governmental character; Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: AYASKANTA JENA Designation: Personal Assistant Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa Date: 20-Aug-2024 10:46:36 1(1981 ) 1 SCC 722 2(1979) 3 SCC 489 Page 3 of 12 (3) It may also be a relevant factorwhether the corporation enjoys monopoly status which is State conferred or State protected; (4) Existence of deep and pervasive State control may afford an indication that the corporation is a State agency or instrumentality ; (5) If the functions of the corporation are of public importance and closely related to governmental functions, it would be a relevant factor in classifying the corporation as an instrumentality or agency of Government ; (6) "Specifically, if a department of Government is transferred to a corporation, it would be a strong factor supportive of this inference" of the corporation being an instrumentality or agency of Government. If on a consideration of these relevant factors it is found that the corporation is an instrumentality or agency of government, it would, as pointed out in the International Airport Authority case, be an ’authority’ and, therefore, ’State’ within the meaning of the expression in Article 12." Then, in Pradeep Kumar Biswas v. Indian Institute of Chemical Biology and Others,3 a seven-judge Bench of the Apex Court, meticulously examined and endorsed the criteria established in the RD Shetty (supra) and reaffirmed in the Ajay Hasia(supra) for determining when a corporation can be classified as an "instrumentality" or "agency" of the government, thereby falling within the scope of the term ’authority’ as defined in Article 12 of the Constitution. The Bench referenced the case of Chander Mohan Khanna v. NCERT,4 wherein the Apex Court, after evaluating the memorandum of association and operational rules, concluded that the NCERT was primarily an autonomous entity. It was determined that functions were not exclusively governmental, and government oversight was limited to ensuring proper utilization of grants. Since its funding was not entirely derived from government sources, it did not meet the criteria of a State instrumentality under Article 12. Additionally, the Bench cited the decision in Mysore Paper Mills Ltd. v. Mysore Paper Mills Officers’ Association,5 where it was established that the company qualified as an authority under Article 12. This conclusion was based on the fact that the company was substantially funded and financially controlled by the government, operated under a Board of Directors appointed and removable by the government, and undertook functions of significant public interest under governmental oversight. its Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: AYASKANTA JENA Designation: Personal Assistant Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa Date: 20-Aug-2024 10:46:36