Application under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India. Jagatiswar Sahoo … v. State of Odisha & Others
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C) No. 9077 of 2023 Application under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India. Jagatiswar Sahoo …… Petitioner --------------- - Versus - State of Odisha & Others ...…. Opp. Parties Advocate(s) appeared in this case:- ________________________________________________________ For Petitioner : Mr. A. Tripathy, Advocate. For Opp. Parties
Legal Reasoning
: Mr. S.R. Pattnaik, Addl. Government Advocate _________________________________________________________ CORAM: JUSTICE SASHIKANTA MISHRA JUDGMENT 12.03.2025 SASHIKANTA MISHRA, J. The petitioner was engaged as Jogan Sahayak in Dhaulimuhan Gram Panchayat by order dated 20.05.2013 of the BDO, Khurda. While working as such, his remuneration was withheld for some period for which he approached this Page 1 of 7 Court. While working as such, vide order dated 03.01.2022 he was withdrawn from his official work and directed to assist the PEO in his day to day work. The petitioner approached this Court challenging such decision in W.P.(C) No.8506 of 2022. By order dated 12.04.2022, a coordinate Bench of this Court directed the BDO to consider the representation then pending before him for disposal in accordance with law. Pursuant to such order, by order dated 02.06.2022 the petitioner was reinstated in his former post and joined on 03.06.2022. His remuneration from November, 2021 having not been released, he submitted representation on 18.07.2022 addressed to the Principal Secretary, Food Supplies and Consumer Welfare Department (FS & CW Department). As per instruction issued by the department, the remuneration of the petitioner for the months of November & December, 2021 was credited to his account. However, most surprisingly, by order dated 02.02.2023, the BDO apart from holding that the petitioner will not be entitled to remuneration for the dates on which he did not render work, also decided that he shall not be engaged in Page 2 of 7 the Gram Panchayat. Copy of said order, which is enclosed as Annexure-8 to the writ application, is impugned. 2. The stand of the State, as per the counter affidavit filed is that the petitioner had not worked from 06.01.2022 to 02.06.2022 and from 02.07.2022 to 31.10.2022 for which the impugned order was rightly issued. A coordinate Bench of this Court by order dated 28.07.2023 directed the BDO, Khurda to conduct an inquiry and submit report. Accordingly, the BDO conducted inquiry and submitted report through an affidavit before this Court. Copy of the inquiry report, which is enclosed as Annexure-B/5 to the affidavit, reveals that the petitioner was found guilty of two allegations. The petitioner submitted his clarification, to which a reply has also been filed by the BDO. 3. Heard Mr. A. Tripathy, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. S.R. Pattnaik, learned Addl. Government Advocate for the State. 4. Mr. Tripathy would submit that the impugned order does not disclose any ground whatsoever for disengagement of the petitioner as Jogan Sahayak. Only because this Court directed the BDO to conduct inquiry, fresh allegations have Page 3 of 7 been made against him. Even then, said allegations have not been inquired into properly and the finding against the petitioner is absolutely without basis. 5. Mr. Pattnaik, on the other hand would forcefully submit that there are multiple allegations against the petitioner including the allegation of misappropriation of Government rice. It was established that the petitioner lifted rice in the name of dead persons for his own benefit. 6. This Court firstly observes that the impugned order under Annexure-8 does not cite any ground whatsoever for disengaging the petitioner much less the ground of misappropriation or any misconduct. The counter affidavit filed by the State does not in the least throw light as to the decision taken to disengage the petitioner. Be that as it may, this Court having directed the BDO to conduct a field inquiry, a report has been submitted being Annexure-B/5. Perusal of the report reveals that two allegations have been leveled against the petitioner-firstly, he is alleged to have lifted rice in the name of the mother of one Gurubari Behera even after being intimated of her death. The finding of the BDO on this allegation are Page 4 of 7 reproduced herein below. “During enquiry and detail verification of Ration Distribution Book of the petitioner along with online PDS date base portal of FS & CW Department., it is found that, the allegation made by the petitioner is true and based on facts. Sri Jagatiswar Sahoo, Ex- Jogan Sahayak has misappropriated the PDS commodities with a tune of 0.7 qtls knowingly keeping both the petitioner and in Gram darkness.” administration Panchayatr This can hardly be treated as a finding based on evidence or materials. 7. As to the allegation of misappropriation of rice in respect of another beneficiary namely, Sarojini Paikaray. Following is the finding of the inquiry. from “During re-verification of pure un- the transaction authentication offline online PDS data base portal, it is also noticed that PDS commodities of one Antodaya Arna Yojan (AAY) beneficiary namely Sarojini Paikaray of Durgaprasad village has also been misappropriated From enquiry is also revealed that Sarojini Paikaray has died on 20.09.2019 whereas PDS commodities against the beneficiary have been lifted up to June 2021 and not distributed to any other 02 members of her family, which proved misappropriation of ration in the name of deceased person as well as genuine alive beneficiaries.” it 8. Again, this can hardly be treated as a finding in accordance with law inasmuch as how it was held that the fact of death of Sarojini Paikaray was within the knowledge of the Page 5 of 7 petitioner has not been spelt out at all. Here thus, as it appears, the allegations of misappropriation were not proved but, inferred. 9. The second allegation relates to the non-seeding of the Aadhar with Ration Card of another beneficiary namely Sandhya Bhanda. The finding of the BDO is as follows; the beneficiary “During enquiry, it is found that Sri Jagatiswar Sahoo, Ex-Jogan Sahayak, Dhaulimuhan Gram Panchayat has not informed regarding necessity of seeding of Aadhar with ration Card. This indicates clear negligence in Govt. duties and due to his callousness attitude the PDS beneficiaries have deprived to get benefit for which they are legally entitled.” 10. How the BDO arrived at the finding that the petitioner had not informed the beneficiary regarding the seeding has not been given out. As it appears, simply on the basis of the written allegations made by the concerned beneficiaries without obtaining version of the petitioner thereupon, the BDO has arrived at the finding of guilt of the petitioner. 11. From the foregoing narration, it is evident that the impugned order cannot be sustained. Secondly, the finding of Page 6 of 7 guilt as per the inquiry conducted by the BDO also cannot be sustained for the reasons indicated above. 12. The writ application is therefore allowed. The impugned order under Annexure-8 is hereby set aside. Further the inquiry report submitted by the BDO on 24.10.2023, 04.10.2023 is also quashed. The petitioner shall be reinstated in service forthwith. It shall however be open to the authorities to proceed against the petitioner in respect of any valid allegations but the same shall be strictly in accordance with law by adhering to the principles of natural justice. ..…..……………………. Sashikanta Mishra, Judge Orissa High Court, Cuttack. The 12th of March, 2025/ P. Ghadai, Jr. Steno. Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: PUSPANJALI GHADAI Designation: Junior Stenographer Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack. Date: 18-Mar-2025 17:07:44 Page 7 of 7