The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK WP(C) No. 7418 of 2016 Puspalata Sahoo ..... State of Odisha & Ors. -versus- ..... CORAM: Petitioner Mr. S.K. Mishra, Advocate Opposite Parties Mr. S.K. Jee, AGA THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY
Decision
ORDER 27.01.2025 Order No. 08 1. This matter is taken up through hybrid mode. 2. Heard Mr. S.K. Mishra, learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner and Mr. S.K. Jee, learned Addl. Govt. Advocate appearing for the Opp. Parties. 3. The present writ petition has been filed inter alia with the following prayer:- “It is therefore, most humbly prayed that this Hon'ble Court be graciously pleased to i) Admit the writ application. ii) Call for the record. iii) Issue Rule Nisi calling upon the opposite parties to show cause as to why the impugned office order issued by opposite party no.4 dated 18.05.2015 and 10.02.2016 under Annexures-5 and 6 and subsequent letter of opposite party No.4 dated 21.04.2016 under Annexure-7 shall not be quashed. iv) If the opposite parties fail to show cause or show insufficient cause make the rule absolute and issue a writ in the nature of certiorari or any other writ/writs direction/direction quashing office order issued by opposite Page 1 of 5. party no.4 dated 18.05.2015 and 10.02.2016 under Annexures-5 and 6 and subsequent letter of opposite party No.4 dated 21.04.2016 under Annexure- 7. v) Issue a writ in the nature of mandamus or any other writ/writs direction/directions directing the opposite parties particularly, opposite party No. 2 to release the withheld salary of the petitioner as against the post of Lecturer in English in terms of the approval order dated 24.02.2014 under Annexure-4 forthwith without any further delay and further to declare the action of opposite party no.4 in interfering with the services of the petitioner to be without jurisdiction and uncalled for and the petitioner be entitled to receive all the service and consequential benefit right from 18.05.2013 onwards towards his salary within a reasonable time to be stipulated by this Hon'ble Court. vi) And/or pass any other order/orders, direction/directions as this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper for the ends of justice. And for the said act of kindness, the petitioner as in duty bound shall ever pray.” 4. It is contended that Petitioner while continuing as a Lecturer in English in Anchalika +3 Mahavidyalaya, Padampur in the district of Keonjhar, her services was approved vide order dtd.24.02.2014 under Annexure-4. 4.1. It is contended that while so continuing with the order of approval issued in her favour under Annexure-4, Grant-in-aid released in favour of the Petitioner was withheld vide office order dtd.18.05.2015 under Annexure-5 of Opp. Party No. 2. Subsequently, challenging order at Annexure-5 when a writ petition was filed by the Petitioner before this Court in W.P.(C) No. 20976 of 2015 and this Court vide order dt.01.12.2015 directed Opp. Party No. 2 to take a decision on the Petitioner’s claim to continue with Page 2 of 5. release of the block grant, the same was rejected vide office order dtd.10.02.2016 under Annexure-6 of Opp. Party No. 2. 4.2. It is further contended that subsequently Opp. Party No. 4 vide letter dtd.21.04.2016 under Annexure-7 when recommended for removal of the Petitioner from her services and to realize the block grant so paid to her to Opp. Party No. 2 basing on the suggestion of the Superintendent of Police, Vigilance Cell, Cuttack, the present writ petition was filed challenging the orders available under Annexure-5, 6 & 7. 4.3. Learned counsel for the Petitioner contended that all those actions were taken against the Petitioner vide orders under Annexure-5, 6 & 7 basing on the initiation of a vigilance proceeding in Vigilance Cell P.S. Case No. 4 dtd.04.04.2015 under Sec. 13(2) r.w. 13(1)(c)(d) of the P.C. Act, 1988 and Sec. 468, 471, 409/120-B of the I.P.C.. 4.4. It is also contended that in the aforesaid vigilance proceeding no charge sheet has yet been filed and pursuant to the interim order passed by this Court on 09.05.2016, though Petitioner is discharging her duty and getting her block grant as due and admissible, but prior to finalization of the vigilance proceeding so initiated against her, no such order/letter could have been issued under Annexure-5, 6 & 7. 4.5. It is contended that unless and until Petitioner is held guilty of the of the charges in the vigilance proceeding in which no charge sheet has yet been filed, action of the Opp. Parties in issuing the impugned orders under Annexure-5, 6 & 7 are not sustainable in the eye of law and requires interference of this Court. Page 3 of 5. 5. Even though the writ petition was filed on 29.04.2016 and notice was issued by this Court with passing of an interim order on 09.05.2016, but in spite of several opportunities, no counter affidavit has been filed as yet. However, basing on the materials available on record, learned Addl. Govt. Advocate contended that since a vigilance proceeding has been initiated against the Petitioner in vigilance Cell P.S. Case No. 4 of 2015, because of her implication in the vigilance case, order under Annexure-5 was initially issued directing for withheld of the block grant. Subsequently, in consideration of the order passed by this Court in W.P.(C) No. 20976 of 2015, Opp. Party No. 2 refused to release the block grant vide order dt.10.02.2016 under Annexure-6. 5.1. However, since in the meantime Superintendent of Police, Vigilance Cell, Cuttack suggested for removal of the Petitioner from her services, order under Annexure-7 was issued by Opp. Party No.4. It is accordingly contended that since Petitioner has been implicated in a vigilance case, no illegality or irregularity can be found with the action of the Opp. Parties in issuing the impugned orders under Annexure-5, 6 & 7. 6. Having heard learned counsel appearing for the Parties and considering the submissions made, this Court finds that Petitioner was appointed as a Lecturer in English vide order of appointment issued on 23.05.2002 under Annexure-1. Petitioner as found from Annexure-1 series joined in her duty on 30.05.2002. Considering the proposal submitted by the Governing Body of the College and after due verification, services of the Petitioner was approved vide office order dtd.24.02.2014 under Annexure-4. If basing on some complaint or material a vigilance proceeding has been initiated Page 4 of 5. against the Petitioner in Cuttack Vigilance Cell P.S. Case No. 4 dtd.04.04.2015, it is the view of this Court that prior to finalization of the said proceeding by holding the Petitioner guilty of the charges, if any, no such order could have been issued under Annexure-5, 6 & 7. 6.1. Therefore, this Court is inclined to quash the impugned orders dtd.18.05.2015, 10.02.2016 and 21.04.2016 so issued under Annexure-5, 6 & 7. While quashing all the orders, this Court directs Opp. Parties to allow the Petitioner to continue in her services, but the same shall be subject to final outcome of the vigilance proceeding, in which this Court expresses no opinion. 7. The writ petition is disposed of accordingly. Sneha (BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY) Judge Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: SNEHANJALI PARIDA Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Date: 03-Feb-2025 11:10:36 Page 5 of 5.