The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK WP(C) No.12552 of 2025 Damodar Bhoi ..... Petitioner Represented By Adv. - Dr. Simanchalla Ranjit -versus- The Chief Manager, Director MCL, Sambalpur and others ..... Opposite Parties None
Legal Reasoning
CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADITYA KUMAR MOHAPATRA
Decision
ORDER 06.05.2025 Order No. 01. 1. 2. This matter is taken up through Hybrid mode. Heard learned counsel for the Petitioner as well as learned counsel for the State-Opposite Parties. Perused the writ application as well as the documents annexed thereto. 3. The Petitioner has filed the present writ application with the following prayer: “Therefore, it is fervently prayed that this Hon’ble Court would graciously be pleased to admit this writ petition and it would be expedient in the interest of justice to quash and set aside the Suspension Order dtd. 05.11.2022 of the Project Manager, Lakhanpur OCP, Mahanadi Coalfields Limited (MCL)-O.P. No.- 4 placed under Annexure-4 for that being infructuous and to direct the O.P. No. 4 to favourably consider the the Representation dtd. 01.12.2022 of petitioner placed under Annexure-9 for his Page 1 of 4. in the service revoking Reinstatement the indefinite suspension period commenced from 05.11.2022 and to count the same as continuity in Service in the post of EP Fitter Gr-II in MCL Lakhanpur Opencast Project to get honorable Retirement from the service on 31.05.2025 on the ground of neither termination order against the petitioner and nor the final order to include the quantum of punishment, if any was passed by the O.P. No. 4 till date despite of the Order dtd. 05.12.2022 relating to liberty to appeal granted vide W.P.(C) No. 32182 of 2022 by this Hon’ble Court placed under Annexure-10; Further be pleased to pass any other order or orders and/or direction or directions as may be deemed fit and proper,” 4. Learned counsel for the Petitioner at the outset contended that the Petitioner is working as EP Fitter Excv Cat-B under the MCL. While working as such, the Petitioner was issued with a show cause notice dated 10.09.2005 asking the Petitioner as to why his service shall not be terminated for breach of terms and conditions of his appointment. Thereafter, the Petitioner submitted his reply to the show cause notice. However, no action was taken on such show cause notice. On 05.11.2022 the Opposite Party No.4 issued a charge memo against the Petitioner and the Petitioner was placed under suspension. Learned counsel for the Petitioner further submitted that on 17.11.2022, the Petitioner again submitted his written explanation to the charge memo against him. While this was the position, the Project Manager, Disciplinary Authority took a decision on 09.11.2022 to conduct an enquiry against the Petitioner on the date of allegation made in the charge-sheet. Learned counsel for the Petitioner further contended that while this was the position, the Page 2 of 4. Opposite Party No.4 on 21.11.2022 issued a warning to the Petitioner with regard to handing over his homestead land and house within seven days. He further contended that although the Petitioner submitted several representations against the continuance of suspension order, however, no decision has been taken on such representations and such suspension order, which was passed on 05.11.2022, has not been reviewed by the Opposite Parties, as a result, the Petitioner has been continuing under suspension indefinitely. 5. In the aforesaid context, learned counsel for the Petitioner drawing attention of this Court to the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Ajay Kumar Choudhury vs. Union of India through its Secretary and another reported in (2015) 7 SCC 291, contended that as per the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the above noted judgment the Opposite Parties are duty bound to review the order of suspension, if the same is continuing indefinitely from time to time. He further submitted that no such review has been done in the case of the Petitioner. Therefore, the Opposite Parties have acted in violation of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the above noted judgment. Being aggrieved by such illegality committed by the Opposite Parties in not revoking the suspension order, the Petitioner has approached this Court by filing the present writ petition. 6. Learned counsel for the State on the other hand contended that since the Petitioner has approached the Opposite Party No.2, who is the competent authority and in the event any such representation is pending before the Opposite Party No.2, she will have no objection in the event this Court directs the Opposite Party No.2 to take a lawful decision on the representation of the Petitioner dated Page 3 of 4. 25.09.2023 in accordance with law and within a stipulated period of time. 7. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner, on a careful examination of the background facts, further taking note of the of the document annexed to the writ petition, this Court found that the matter can be disposed of at the stage of admission in terms of the settled position of law as has been laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Ajay Kumar Choudhury’s case (supra). Accordingly, the present writ petition is disposed of by directing the Opposite Party No.4 to review the decision with regard to putting the Petitioner under suspension vide order dated 05.11.2022 in terms of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Ajay Kumar Choudhury’s case (supra) within a period of two weeks from the date of communication of a certified copy of today’s order. The final decision so taken be communicated to the Petitioner within a week thereafter. Since this order is passed in the absence of the Opposite Parties, liberty is given to the Opposite Parties to seek for modification or variation of today’s order in the event it is found that the Petitioner has mislead the Court or suppressed any information. 8. With the aforesaid observations/directions, the writ application stands disposed of. Issue urgent certified copy of this order as per Rules. S.K. Rout ( Aditya Kumar Mohapatra ) Judge Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: SANTANU KUMAR ROUT Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Date: 13-May-2025 17:57:39 Page 4 of 4.