The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK WA No. 677 of 2023 And I.A. no.1743 of 2023 State of Odisha and another …. Appellants -versus- Sunita Sahu …. Respondent Learned advocates appeared in the case: For Appellants : Mr. S.K. Swain, Advocate (Additional Government Advocate) For Respondent : Mr. S. Behera, Advocate CORAM:
Legal Reasoning
THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ARINDAM SINHA, THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE AND THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE M.S. SAHOO J U D G M E N T ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Date of hearing and judgment: 18th March, 2025 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ ARINDAM SINHA, ACJ. 1. This appeal has been preferred against order dated 9th September, 2022 passed by the learned single Judge quashing order dated 10th February, 2012 of termination as well as order dated 14th November, 2017, rejecting petitioner’s representation, to direct reinstatement of respondent forthwith, within one month from date of receipt of the order. Mr. Swain, learned advocate, Additional Page 1 of 7 Government Advocate appears on behalf of appellant (State). Mr. Behera, learned advocate appears on behalf of respondent, who was petitioner before the learned single Judge. 2. Mr. Swain submits, the appeal was presented on reported delay of 177 days. Mr. Behera submits, objection has been filed. Mr. Swain in reply submits, there is merit in the grounds of appeal. The delay should not be seen as fatal to the cause. We have perused the application and cause shown for the delay as well as considered submission made on behalf of State that it has good grounds of appeal. We are inclined to and accept the cause shown. The delay is
Decision
condoned and the appeal admitted. The application is disposed of. 3. Mr. Swain refers to said order dated 14th November, 2017 made by Deputy Director of Agriculture, Sambalpur. He submits, respondent had violated Government Servants’ Conduct Rules, 1959. Hence, there was said order of termination dated 10th February, 2012. He adds, respondent was on contractual engagement. Therefore also, she could not have challenged her termination. Relied upon paragraph in said order dated 14th November, 2017 is reproduced below. “And whereas after closer examination & careful consideration of the case, the submission of the applicant made in her representation vide Annexure-3 Page 2 of 7 WA no. 677 of 2023 series and all the evidences available on records, it has been found that the prayer of Miss Sunita Sahu, ex- VAW as made in her representation merits no consideration since the applicant was engaged as a V.A.W. on contractual basis with terms & condition that “The candidates so engaged on contractual basis shall not claim for regularization of their service either during the period of their engagement or after its termination and should be good character”. As per Government Servants Conduct Rules, 1959 every Govt. servant shall at all times maintain absolute integrity, decorum of conduct and devotion to duty and shall not commit any act which amounts to personal immorality or failure to discharge duties properly. In the instance case the Applicant has violated the Rule-3 of Government Servant Conduct Rules, 1959. So, the Respondent No.3 had terminated the Applicant from her contractual engagement for the interest of public.” 4. Mr. Behera draws attention to judgment dated 13th February, 2017 made by Special Judge (Vigilance), Sambalpur. He submits, the learned judge acquitted his client from the charge of having demanded and accepted bribe. There was no opportunity earlier granted by the employer on initiating disciplinary proceeding for purpose of removing his client. A purported trap was laid and his client disengaged citing violation of the conduct rules. Mr. Swain in WA no. 677 of 2023 Page 3 of 7 reply submits, respondent after long period of 5 years challenged the termination. 5. It is necessary and we reproduce below text of original termination order dated 10th February, 2012. “On verification of letter No. 751 dt. 7.2.2012 of Superintendent of Police Vigilance, Sambalpur Division, Sambalpur, it is noticed that Miss Sunita Sahu, Lady VAW(contractual) was trapped on dt. 4.02.2012 and remanded to Judicial custody while demanding and accepting bribe of Rs.6000/- from a farmer for payment of dues of his father Sri Govinda Panda, elder brother Aswini Panda, sister Madhumita Panda and sinter-in-law Mamata Panda under the line sowing and Line transplanting. Being a case of redhanded entrapment, the services of Miss Sunita Sahu, engaged as Lady Village Agril. Worker on contractual basis in Mundhenpali GP of Jamankira block appointed vide this officer Order No. 7900 Dt. 29.12.2008 is hereby terminated with effect from dt. 04.02.2012” 6. For facts we refer to said judgment dated 13th February, 2017 on having ascertained, appellant did not prefer appeal against the direction for acquittal made thereby. It appears from said judgment, respondent had admitted to taking ₹6,000/- (rupees six thousand) WA no. 677 of 2023 Page 4 of 7 from complainant in the vigilance case. Respondent gave explanation that she was under orders to accept it as payment of outstanding from complainant towards supply of seeds and gypsum. Prosecution witness no.5 (PW-5) was respondent’s authority, who deposed in the vigilance case that he had so authorized respondent. The authorization letter was exhibit-A in the proceeding. The authorization was also informed to his superior by exhibit-B in the proceeding. Mr. Swain submits, the witness had turned hostile. We have not been shown anything elicited from PW-5 in cross-examination by the prosecution, on the witness declared ‘hostile’. 7. The learned Special Judge proceeded to find that there was omission to prove demand. This was on establishing that ₹6,000/- (rupees six thousand) was paid to respondent, who admitted receiving same on the explanation tendered. There was no departmental proceeding against respondent because she was engaged on contractual basis. She was visited with charge of breach of Odisha Government Servants’ Conduct Rules, 1959. Clause-(b) under definitions rule 2 gives meaning of Government servant. Appellant’s case before the learned single Judge and here is, respondent was a contractual employee. Being such, her engagement could be terminated. There was no requirement for initiation of departmental Page 5 of 7 WA no. 677 of 2023 proceeding against her. Text of original termination order dated 10th February, 2012 confirms there was not initiation of departmental proceeding, for there being enquiry on facts. As such, petitioner was disengaged without opportunity had of explaining her conduct at her place of work. 8. At this stage Mr. Swain submits, the learned single Judge had not given any reason for interfering. Having interfered the learned judge said that prior to passing of such termination order respondent was never show-caused nor any opportunity of hearing was given to her. The subsequent observation was not given as a reason. As such, the order requires interference in appeal. Paragraph-9 from impugned order is reproduced below. “9. Since the Petitioner was terminated because of her implication in the vigilance case, this Court finds that the order of termination passed by the Opposite Party No.3 is not legal and justified. Not only that prior to passing of such order of termination, the Petitioner was never show caused nor any opportunity of hearing was given to her. ” Mr. Swain reiterates, petitioner went before the writ Court long after the order of termination. WA no. 677 of 2023 Page 6 of 7 9. Respondent stood terminated on 10th February, 2012. It was the day on which the trap was laid for her. She was arrested. Vigilance case commenced against her and she was charged. It resulted in said judgment dated 13th February, 2017. We find from the writ file, the writ petition was presented on 8th June, 2020. Mr. Behera submits, the writ petition was registered and numbered on transfer from Odisha Administrative Tribunal (OAT), Circuit Bench at Sambalpur. The case was filed on 19th March, 2018. He submits further, his client laboring under the charge and pendency of the vigilance case and her service already terminated, had reason to challenge the termination only upon her acquittal. 10. Appellant’s grievance of no reason given by the learned single Judge has been taken care of on reasons supplied by us. As such, there is no necessity for interference with the direction made. 11. The appeal is accordingly disposed of. Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: PRASANT KUMAR SAHOO Designation: PERSONAL ASSISTANT Reason: Authentication Location: Orissa High Court Date: 20-Mar-2025 13:47:05 Prasant WA no. 677 of 2023 ( Arindam Sinha ) Acting Chief Justice ( M.S. Sahoo ) Judge Page 7 of 7