The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C) No.16221 of 2013 Purna Ch. Podh …. Petitioner Mr. M.K.Mohapatro, Advocate State of Odisha and another …. Opposite Parties -versus- Addl. Govt. Advocate CORAM: JUSTICE SASHIKANTA MISHRA Order No.
Decision
ORDER 06.3.2024. 08. 1. This matter is taken up through hybrid mode. 2. Heard learned counsel for the Petitioner and learned Addl. Standing Counsel for the State. 3. The Petitioner has approached this Court seeking the following relief:- “It is therefore prayed that this Hon’ble Court may graciously be pleased to admit the writ application, call for the record, issue notice to the Opp.parties the to show cause as disengagement order vide Memo No.337 dated 1.2.2013 under Annexure-2 issued by Opp.Party No.1 shall not be declared as illegal and the same shall not be quashed, to why Page 1 of 5 // 2 // If the Opp.Parties do not show cause or show insufficient cause, issue as writ in the nature of certiorari by quashing the disengagement order vide Memo No.337 dated 1.2.2013 under Annexure-2 issued by Opposite Party No.1. And issue a writ in the nature of Mandamus directing the Opp.Parties to allow the Petitioner to in discharge his duty as Gana Shikshak Dumerbahal Bhawanipatna Education District in the district of Kalahandi.” PUPS under 4. The case of the Petitioner is that he was engaged as Gana Shikshak (GS), vide order dated 13.10.2008 of the Collector-cum-CEO, Zilla Parisad, Kalahandi (Opposite Party No.1). While working as such, an F.I.R. was lodged against him on the allegation of commission of offences under Sections 323/341/294/307/506/34 of I.P.C. In view of such developments, the Opposite Party No.1 vide order dated 1.2.2013, copy of which has been enclosed as Annexure-2 to the Writ Petition, disengaged him from service with retrospective effect from 08.12.2012 being purportedly convinced regarding his misconduct. It is submitted by Mr. Mohapatro, learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner that the F.l.R. in Bhawanipatna P.S. Case No.250/2012 corresponds to C.T. Case No.916/2012 in the Court of learned Sessions Judge, Kalahandi, Bhawanipatna. After conclusion of trial, the Petitioner-accused was acquitted of the charges vide judgment dated 13.12.2017 as the prosecution failed to prove the case against him beyond all reasonable Page 2 of 5 // 3 // doubt. Mr. Mohapatro further submits that he has been continuing as GS on the strength of the interim order passed by this Court on 22.7.2013 in the present Writ Petition. He further refers to the stand taken by the State in its counter that the Petitioner would be re-engaged in service if he is acquitted from the criminal charge. Mr. Mohapatro concludes his argument by submitting that since he has been acquitted from the criminal charges, the order of disengagement should be set aside and the Petitioner should be allowed to continue in service as before. 5. Mr. A.R.Dash, learned Addl. Government Advocate, submits that the Petitioner was in custody for more than 48 hours and therefore, as per the Government Rules, he was deemed to be under suspension and was subsequently disengaged in terms of the agreement executed by him at the time of his engagement. 6. After hearing learned counsel this Court finds that by order dated 01.2.2013 the Collector, referring to the F.I.R. being Bhawanipatna P.S. Case No.250 dtd.8.12.2012 disengaged the Petitioner from service with retrospective effect from 08.12.2012. Copy of the judgment passed in the criminal case is enclosed to the rejoinder, which reveals that the prosecution failed to establish the case against the Petitioner and the other accused persons for which, a judgment of acquittal was passed. The said order has not been Page 3 of 5 // 4 // challenged by the State as yet. In the counter affidavit filed by Opposite Party Nos.1 and 2, the following has been stated under paragraph-7; under regarding 08.12.2012 Bhawanipatna Collector-Cum-CEO, convinced “7. That It is respectfully submitted that after receiving the FIR Copy vide Bhawanipatna P.S. Case No. 250 section dated 323/341/294/307/506/34 IPC on 28.01.2013 through ZP, DIS, the Kalahandi has been misconduct of the petitioner and issued disengagement order vide no.337 dated 01.02.2013 retrospectively w.e.f. 08.12.2012 i.e. from the date of register of the case. Further as per Govt. rule if one remains for more than 48 hours under custody he is liable to be suspended from the service. In this case as per the the report of petitioner has remained in the Jail for more than 38 days. As the nature of the work of the petitioner is is no provision of there contractual suspension from service. Hence he has been disengaged and if in future he will be acquitted from the criminal charge by the Hon’ble Court he will be re-engaged in his post.” the IIC, Bhawanipatna Sadar PS in nature (Emphasis added) 7. Since a specific stand has been taken by the State of reengaging the Petitioner in case of his acquittal from the criminal charge, nothing remains to be decided in the Writ Petition any more in view of the factual developments noted above. Moreover the Petitioner, as already stated, has been continuing in service on the strength of the interim order passed by this Court. Page 4 of 5 // 5 // 8. In such view of the matter, this Court is of the view that interest of justice would be best served if the Petitioner is granted liberty to approach the concerned authority by submitting a representation intimating all the factual developments. The Writ Petition is therefore, disposed of granting liberty to the petitioner to submit a representation enclosing certified copy of the judgment passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Kalahandi in C.T. Case No.43/2014 (Sessions) on 13.12.2017 within two weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. If such representation is submitted within the stipulated period, the Collector-cum- CEO, Zilla Parisad, Kalahandi (Opposite Party No.1) shall consider the same and pass necessary order having due regard to the stand taken in the counter affidavit filed before this Court by Opposite Party Nos.1 and 2 at paragraph-7 quoted above within a period of three weeks. The impugned order dated 01.2.2013 is hereby quashed. 9. Urgent certified copy of this order be granted on proper application. (Sashikanta Mishra) Judge AKB Page 5 of 5 // 6 // . Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: ASHOK KUMAR BEHERA Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Date: 07-Mar-2024 11:51:54 Page 6 of 5