The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK WP(C) No. 12545 of 2025 ..... Antaryami Baliarsingh Petitioner Mr. G.N. Rout, Advocate State of Odisha &Ors. -versus- ..... CORAM: Opposite Parties Mr. S.P. Das, ASC THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY ORDER 28.11.2025 Order No.03 1. This matter is taken up through hybrid mode.
Legal Reasoning
2. Heard Mr. G.N. Rout, learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner, as he filed his Vakalatnama in support of his appearance on behalf of the Petitioner in Court and Mr. S.P. Das, learned Addl. Standing Counsel appearing for the State-Opp. Parties. Vakalatnama so filed in Court be kept in record. 3. The present writ petition has bene filed inter alia challenging order dtd.10.04.2025 so issued by the Collector-cum-Chairperson, DCPO, Nuapada-Opp. Party No. 3 under Annexure-2 and the direction issued by Opp. Party No. 1 vide letter dtd.10.04.2025 under Annexure-3. 4. It is the case of the Petitioner that Petitioner was engaged as District Child Protection Officer in the District Child Protection Unit of Nuapada district vide order of engagement issued by the Govt.-Opp. Party No. 1 on 06.02.2023 under Annexure-1. While so continuing and without issuing any notice in terms of Para 6 of the letter of engagement, Petitioner was straight away terminated from his engagement vide the impugned office order dtd.10.04.2025 so Page 1 of 5. issued by Opp. Party No. 3 under Annexure-2 basing on the letter issued by the Opp. Party No. 1 on 10.04.2025 under Annexure-3. 4.1. It is contended that Petitioner has been so disengaged on the ground that his further continuance is not in the better interest of the Unit and he is involved in nefarious activities. 4.2. It is the main contention of the learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner that since Petitioner in terms of the letter of engagement was never issued with any notice as provided under Para 6 of Annexure-1, the order of disengagement is not sustainable in the eye of law. It is also contended that since Petitioner has been disengaged pursuant to the letter issued by the Govt.-Opp. Party No. 1 under Annexure-3, basing on some report made by the Collector against him and Petitioner was never given an opportunity, prior to submission of such a report by Opp. Party No. 3, the same could not have been used against the Petitioner, by Opp. Party No. 1 while issuing Annexure-3. 4.3. It is contended that such a report was prepared by the A.D.M. (General), Nuapada, who made certain allegation against the Petitioner regarding acceptance of a gift in the name of his wife so reflected in the document available under Annexure-B/3 to the counter affidavit. It is contended that such report was prepared by the ADM (General), Nuapada in respect of the allegation made by him against the Petitioner. 4.4. It is contended that since allegation was made against the Petitioner by ADM, Nuapada, he could not have been asked to submit the report by causing an enquiry of the same. However, such report when was forwarded by the Collector & District Magistrate Page 2 of 5. vide Annexure-B/3, Opp. Party No. 1 without giving any opportunity to the Petitioner to disprove the allegation, issued the impugned letter dtd.10.04.2025 under Annexure-3, directing Opp. Party No. 3 to disengage the Petitioner. On receipt of such letter from Opp. Party No. 1, Petitioner was disengaged vide the impugned order dtd.10.04.2025 under Annexure-2. It is accordingly contended that the ground on which Petitioner has been disengaged vide order at Annexure-2, pursuant to the letter issued under Annexure-3 are not legal and justified and requires interference of this Court. 4.5. A further submission is also made that Petitioner after being so disengaged when was directed to vacate the quarter and Petitioner made a request to remain in occupation of the quarter till disposal of
Decision
the writ petition, the same was also rejected by Opp. Party No. 3 on the face of the interim order passed by this Court on 06.05.2025. 5. Mr. S.P. Das, learned Addl. Standing Counsel on the other hand made his submissions basing on the stand taken in the counter affidavit so filed by Opp. Party No. 3. It is contended that while continuing in terms of the order of engagement issued under Annexure-1, when allegation was made by the ADM (General), Nuapada that Petitioner has received a gift in the name of his wife, he was asked to cause an enquiry. Basing on the report submitted by the ADM (General), Nuapada, Opp. Party No. 3 vide letter dtd.04.03.2025 under Annexure-B/3, requested the Govt. to disengage the Petitioner and on receipt of such report from the Collector vide Annexure-B/3, Opp. Party No. 1 vide letter dtd.10.04.2025 under Annexure-3, directed the Collector & District Magistrate, Nuapada to disengage the Petitioner, which was acted Page 3 of 5. upon with issuance of the impugned order dtd.10.04.2025 under Annexure-2. 5.1. It is accordingly contended that since the allegation made by the ADM (General), Nuapada was proved with due enquiry, no illegality or irregularity can be found with the impugned order. 6. Having heard learned counsel appearing for the Parties and considering the submissions made, this Court finds that Petitioner in terms of the order of engagement issued on 06.02.2023 under Annexure-1 so issued by Opp. Party No. 1 was engaged as District Child Protection Officer in the District Child Protection Unit, Nuapada. As provided in the said order of engagement, such termination of the Petitioner can be made by giving in writing to the other party one month’s notice or in lieu thereof, a sum equal to the amount or pro-rated amount of salary, which would have been accrued to the Petitioner during the period or remaining period of notice. 6.1. But it is found that basing on the letter issued by the Collector & District Magistrate, Nuapada under Annexure-B/3 on 04.03.2025, Opp. Party No. 1 issued the impugned letter dtd.10.04.2025 under Annexure-3, directing Opp. Party No. 3 to disengage the Petitioner, which was acted upon with issuance of the impugned order dtd.10.04.2025 under Annexure-2. 6.2. Since the allegation made against the Petitioner by the ADM, Nuapada was proved by the self-same authority with submission of a report, and no opportunity was given to the Petitioner prior to preparation of such a report against him, it is the view of this Court that taking into account such report against the Petitioner so Page 4 of 5. prepared by the ADM who is also the complainant, no letter could have been issued either by the Collector vide letter dtd.04.03.2025 under Annexure-B/3 or by Opp. Party No. 1, while issuing the impugned letter dtd.10.04.2025 under Annexure-3. 6.3. In view of the aforesaid analysis, this Court is of the view that the ground on which Petitioner was disengaged vide the impugned order dtd.10.04.2025 under Annexure-2 by Opp. Party No. 3 basing on letter dtd.10.04.2025 of Opp. Party No. 1 under Annexure-3 are not sustainable in the eye of law. While quashing order dt.10.04.2025 and letter dt.10.04.2025 under Annexure-2 and 3, this Court directs Opp. Party No. 1 to allow the Petitioner to continue in his engagement in terms of the order under Annexure-1, with passing of a fresh order within a period of two (2) weeks from the date of receipt of this order. Since the impugned order of disengagement is being quashed by this Court, the order rejecting the Petitioner’s claim to continue in the quarter also stands quashed. 7. The writ petition accordingly stands disposed of. (BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY) Judge Sneha Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: SNEHANJALI PARIDA Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Date: 02-Dec-2025 18:45:57 Page 5 of 5.