(Application under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India) AFR Purusottam Barik v. State of Odisha & Others
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C) No. 15791 of 2025 (Application under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India) AFR Purusottam Barik && Petitioner --------------- - Versus - State of Odisha & Others ...&. Opp. Parties Advocate(s) appeared in this case :- ___________________________________________________________ For Petitioner : M/s. M.K. Khuntia, G.R. Sethi & B.K. Pattanaik, Advocates. For Opp. Parties : Mr. S.N. Pattnaik, Addl. Government Advocate [For O.P Nos. 1 & 2] Ms. J. Tripathy, Special Counsel for State _______________________________________________________ CORAM: JUSTICE SASHIKANTA MISHRA JUDGMENT 31st October, 2025 SASHIKANTA MISHRA, J. This is the third journey of the petitioner to this Court on more or less the same issue. Page 1 of 16 2. The facts of this case are that the petitioner was engaged as Gram Rozgar Sevak (GRS) of Gopinathpur Gram Panchayat in Chandbali Block of Bhadrak District. While working as such, a joint enquiry was conducted against him on the allegation that he had violated the model code of conduct along with the Panchayat Secretary during the Panchayati Raj Elections of 2022. On the recommendation of the State Election Commission, Odisha vide letter dated 20.01.2022, the Collector, Bhadrak, vide office order issued on the same date, disengaged the petitioner with immediate
Facts
effect. The petitioner challenged such order before this Court in W.P.(C) No.10415 of 2022, which was disposed of vide order dated 29.04.2022 granting him liberty to submit a representation before the Collector, who was to consider the same without being influenced by his earlier order. 2.1 The petitioner submitted representation on 04.05.2022, basing on which the Collector initiated Misc. Case No.26 of 2022. In course of hearing, the Collector called for a report from the Block Development Officer (BDO), Chandbali and District Panchayat Officer (DPO), Page 2 of 16 Bhadrak. The BDO submitted a report on 24.05.2022 stating that there was no conclusive evidence with regard to the allegations against the petitioner. The D.P.O. however, submitted a contrary report. The Collector, by order dated 16.06.2022 rejected the representation of the petitioner. 2.2 The petitioner challenged such order of rejection
Legal Reasoning
before this Court in W.P.(C) No. 18543 of 2022. A coordinate Bench of this Court, vide order dated 18.10.2023 found that the principles of natural justice had not been followed. Accordingly, the order of disengagement dated 20.01.2022 was quashed with direction to conduct enquiry with due compliance to the principles of natural justice. 2.3 The petitioner thereafter submitted representation before the Collector praying to be reinstated and to conduct enquiry after granting him opportunity of hearing. The Collector, by letter dated 06.03.2024, instructed the Chief Development Officer (CDO) to conduct enquiry following the principles of natural justice and to submit report. The CDO, by letter dated 02.07.2024 instructed the DPO to submit a detailed report. The DPO vide letter dated 11.07.2024 Page 3 of 16 submitted a report stating that the evidence against the petitioner is inconclusive and insufficient and as such, his case for reengagement may be considered sympathetically. Since no action was taken despite such favourable recommendation, the petitioner approached this Court yet again in the present writ application seeking the following relief: <It is therefore prayed that the Hon’ble court may graciously be pleased to admit the case and call for the records and after hearing both the parties pas the following reliefs: i) To direct the Opposite Parties to reinstate the petitioner in service as per Judgment dtd. 18.10.2023 passed in W.P.(C) No. 18543 of 2022. ii) To direct the opposite parties to regularize the service of the petitioner from the date when his juniors have been regularized with all financial and consequential service benefits. And pass such order/orders as would be deemed fit and proper. And for this act of kindness, the petitioner as in duty bound shall ever pray.= 3. Counter affidavit has been filed by the CDO, Bhadrak. It is stated that while disposing of the earlier writ application filed by the petitioner (W.P.(C) No. 18543 of 2022), this Court did not whisper anything with regard to reinstatement of the petitioner. As such, the prayer of the petitioner for reinstatement must be deemed to have been Page 4 of 16 rejected. It is further stated that the petitioner was engaged against a contractual post, which is not a civil post and is annually renewable subject to fulfillment of certain conditions. As such, his claim for regularization cannot be considered. It is further stated that serious allegations were levelled against the petitioner, basing on which a joint enquiry report was submitted by the BDO, Chandbali on 19.11.2022. The Collector took appropriate decision on consideration of the report. The report submitted by the DPO cannot be accepted since it only contains his personal opinion. The Collector had directed the CDO to conduct enquiry and not the DPO. 4. Counter affidavit has also been filed on behalf of the Collector-cum-Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad. It is, inter alia stated that the so-called enquiry conducted by the CDO does not meet the standards mandated by this Court and law and therefore, it is imperative that the enquiry be conducted afresh ensuring full compliance with the principles of natural justice and affording fair opportunity of hearing to all concerned parties. Page 5 of 16 5. The petitioner has filed a reply basically stating that the earlier order of disengagement having been quashed by this Court, he is entitled to be reinstated in service as a natural corollary of the same. 6. Heard Mr. M.K. Khuntia, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. S.N. Pattnaik, learned Addl. Government Advocate for the State and Ms. J.R. Tripathy, learned Special Counsel appearing for the State for MGNREGS. 7. Mr. Khuntia would argue that once the order of disengagement passed by the Collector is quashed, it is no longer in existence and the natural corollary thereof would be to restore the things as they were. In other words, the petitioner is entitled to be reinstated in service. Mr. Khuntia further submits that from the conduct of the opposite party authorities it can be well seen that they somehow want to keep the petitioner away from service despite quashment of the earlier order of disengagement. In any case, such action cannot be countenanced on the face of a favorable report submitted by the BDO, Chandbali on 24.05.2022 and the Page 6 of 16 DPO, Bhadrak on 11.07.2024 to the effect that the evidence against the petitioner is inconclusive and insufficient. Under such circumstances, the authorities have no other option but to reinstate the petitioner in service as also to grant him the benefit of regularization as granted to similarly placed employees. 8. Mr. Pattnaik, learned State Counsel forcefully argues that the prayer for reinstatement in service is hit by the principles of res judicata since the petitioner had filed the earlier application with the same prayer but this Court had not said anything in that regard. Therefore, the prayer for reinstatement must be deemed to have been refused by this Court. It is therefore, not legally permissible for the petitioner to reagitate the issue. Mr. Pattnaik would further argue that even otherwise, this Court had directed enquiry to be conducted after adhering to the principles of natural justice. The Collector instructed the CDO to do the needful, who, in turn, called for a report from the DPO. Thus, no enquiry worth the name was conducted as directed by this Court. Therefore, in order to strictly comply with the Page 7 of 16 direction of this Court, the CDO has in the meantime conducted an enquiry granting opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and held that the earlier decision to disengage him is just and proper. The petitioner had not challenged such order. On merits, Mr. Pattnaik would argue that there is clear evidence that the petitioner had violated the model code of conduct during Panchayati Raj election at the relevant time as was proved in the joint enquiry conducted by the BDO, Chandbali. 9. Ms. J. Tripathy, while adopting the arguments made by the State Counsel additionally submits that the enquiry revealed that the petitioner9s younger brother was a candidate for Sarpanch in the Panchayat Elections. The petitioner was actively involved in political meetings for which photographs and video clips had gone viral in the social media. The petitioner was also withdrawn from Gopinathpur Gram Panchayat for such reason. All these facts have been clearly proved for which the Collector, in view of the findings of the enquiry conducted by the CDO in compliance of the judgment passed by this Court in the Page 8 of 16 earlier writ application, found no reason to revoke the order of disengagement. As regards the enquiry said to have been conducted by the CDO in course of pendency of the writ application, Ms. Tripathy filed the enquiry report dated 04.10.2025 through a memo. Mr. Khuntia, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the so-called enquiry cannot be taken note of in view of the report of the DPO that there is no conclusive evidence regarding the allegations against the petitioner. According to Mr. Khuntia, the enquiry report of the Collector is nothing but an attempt to patch up the lacuna in the stand taken by the authorities. 10. The facts of the case are undisputed and need not be gone into in detail. It would suffice to note that being aggrieved by the order of disengagement dated 20.01.2022 passed by the Collector, Bhadrak, the petitioner had approached this Court by filing a writ application which was disposed of granting him liberty to submit a representation to the Collector, which was to be considered in accordance with law. The Collector considered the representation and by order dated 16.06.2022, rejected the same. Said order was Page 9 of 16 again challenged before this Court in W.P.(C) No.18543 of 2022. A coordinate Bench of this Court passed a detailed judgment and held that the Collector9s order of rejection was without compliance of the principles of natural justice. Accordingly, the following direction was issued. <In light of the aforesaid discussion and having regard to the present position of law, this Court is of the opinion that the order of disengagement dated 20.01.2022 Party No.2/Collector-cum-DPC, MGNREGS & CEO, Zilla Parisad, Bhadrak should be quashed and the inquiry be conducted with due compliance to the principles of natural justice.= the Opposite issued by 11. Significantly, despite quashing the order of disengagement, the coordinate Bench did not direct reinstatement of the petitioner but directed enquiry to be conducted with due compliance to the principles of natural justice. 12. The question is, whether in the absence of any such positive direction, reinstatement of the petitioner would be a natural corollary. This Court is not inclined to hold so for the reason that had the order of disengagement been quashed without any further direction, a claim for reinstatement could be raised as corollary to the order. Page 10 of 16 However, along with quashment of the impugned order there was also a direction for conducting enquiry. It obviously means the question of reinstatement would depend upon the result of the enquiry to be conducted as directed by this Court. Moreover, the petitioner was not holding any civil post as his engagement was purely contractual in nature subject to renewal on yearly basis. The petitioner9s 8reinstatement9, if at all, can only be by executing a fresh contract as the previous contract must be held to have been terminated by the order of disengagement. This would actually be 8re-engagement9 and not reinstatement as claimed by the petitioner. In such a situation, quashment of the order of disengagement cannot, ipso facto, mean restoration of status quo ante as would normally happen in case of a person holding a civil post. 13. Coming to the other aspects of the case, it is seen that though the judgment of the coordinate Bench was passed on 18.06.2023, enquiry was not conducted for a long time. The ADM, Bhadrak by letter dated 22.11.2023 directed the CDO to conduct enquiry. The CDO, however, appears to Page 11 of 16 have slept over the matter till as long as 02.07.2024 when he passed the buck to the DPO, Bhadrak calling for a report. The DPO, in turn, submitted his report on 11.07.2024. It would be worthwhile to consider the report of the DPO in some detail for which it is deemed proper to extract the entire letter hereinbelow:- <DISTRICT PANCHAYAT OFFICE, BHADRAK Letter No. 576 Dt. 11/07/24 To The C.D.O.-cum-E.O. Zilla Parisad, Bhadrak Sub :- Submission of report and documents available in connection with violation of MCC during PRI election, 2022. Ref: Your letter No. 1192, dt-02.07.2024 Sir, In inviting reference to the letter on the subject cited above, i am to say that in course of PRI election 2022 the secretary SEC, Odisha had transmitted an allegation petition filed by Debedra Kumar Nanda, State Secretary BJP, Odisha on dated 19.01.2022. Immediately on receipt of petition it was forwarded vide this office letter no. 104, dt 19.01.2022 to BDO, Chandbali to conduct in enquiry into the petition. In response to it BDO, Chandbali had submitted the report within same day vide his letter no. 198, dt. 19.01.2022 (copy enclosed). As per report received from BDO Chandbali regarding violation of model code of conduct secy. SEC, Odisha was intimated vide this office letter no. 121, dt. 20.01.2022 (copy enclosed). On receipt of report of Collector Secy. SEC, Odisha instructed to Collector to disengage the GRS and issue show cause to PEO, Gopinathpur G.P. Accordingly Collector-cum-DPC MGNREGS and CEO, Page 12 of 16 ZP. Bhadrak disengage GRS Sri Purusottam Barik vide DRDA order no. 314, dt. 22.01.2022 (copy enclosed). There after Sri Barik had filed a case bearing WP(C) No. 10415 of 2022 before Hon’ble High Court, Odisha challenging the order of disengagement vide office order no. 314, dt 22.01.2022 of DRDA, Bhadrak. Hon’ble High Court, Odisha have disposed off the case and passed order on dt. 29.04.2022 that "the writ petition is disposed of directing the opposite party no.2 the Collector to reconsider the matter without being influenced by the earlier order dt. 20.01.2022 referred to hereinabove". Accordingly on receipt of the order on Hon’ble High Court, Odisha a miscase no 26 of 2022 was initiated in the court of Collector, Bhadrak and in this case BDO, Chandbali was instructed to submit a detail report vide District Office letter no 4144, dt. 17.05.2022. In response to it BDO, Chandbali as submitted a detail report vide his letter no- 1356, dt it was (copy enclosed). Where 24.05.2022 mentioned that the evidence against Sri Purusottam Barik EX-GRS is in-conclusive and insufficient. The punishment against Sri Barik, who has been terminated from service vide letter no. 314 dt. 22.01.2022 quite of Collector, Bhadrak disproportionate as the alleged crime has not been definitively proven. Hence he can be presumed innocent unless proven guilty. in is The misc. case has been disposed by Collector, Bhadrak on dt. 16.06.2022 (copy enclosed). Again Sri Barik GRS filed a case bearing WP(C) no. 18543 of 2022 before Hon’ble High Court, Odisha challenging the order passed by Collector, Bhadrak in miscase no. 26 of 2022 that Collector had not taken into consideration the report submitted by BDO, Chandbali. Hence if pleases as report submitted by BDO Chandbali vide his letter no.1356 dt.24.05.22 that evidence against Sri Purusottam Barik Ex-GRS is in- conclusive and insufficient. As such his case for his Page 13 of 16 reengagement may kindly be considered sympathy ally and take action accordingly. Yours faithfully Sd/-11.07.2024 District Panchayat Officer, Bhadrak= 14. On a plain reading of the above letter, it transpires that there is no enquiry as such conducted by the DPO independently, rather, he deemed it proper to refer to the report dated 24.05.2022 of the BDO, Chandbali to the effect that evidence against the petitioner was inconclusive and insufficient. Additionally, he recommended that the case of the petitioner9s reengagement may be considered sympathetically. This Court fails to understand as to how the above can be construed as any enquiry in the real sense of the term or that it is in consonance with the direction of this Court. Some materials have been placed before this Court to suggest that the petitioner, Tahasildar, Chandbali, BDO, Chandbali and the original complainant against the petitioner were directed to appear personally on 05.08.2025. The report of the CDO dated 04.10.2025 has been placed before this Court through a memo which shows that the Page 14 of 16 noticees were present and participated in enquiry conducted by the CDO. The petitioner contends that the report of the DPO dated 11.07.2024 (Annexure-8) submitted to the CDO satisfies the direction of this Court in the earlier writ application of conducting enquiry. For the reasons indicated, this Court is unable to persuade itself to accept such contention. True, there is delay in acting strictly as per the directions of this Court in the earlier judgment but the same itself does not mean that the enquiry conducted by the CDO on 05.08.2025 and the report submitted on 04.10.2025 was not in terms of the said judgment. 15. The petitioner, though participated in the enquiry, has not specifically challenged the enquiry report of the CDO, which was accepted by the Collector vide order dated 10.10.2025. As such, approach of the petitioner to this Court in the present writ application must, in the facts and circumstances of the case, be held to be premature. 16. Thus, from a conspectus of the facts, contentions raised and the discussions made, this Court holds that the Page 15 of 16 petitioner9s claim for reinstatement at this stage merits no consideration. The writ application is therefore, dismissed. The petitioner, if so advised, may challenge the order of the Collector accepting the enquiry report submitted by the CDO before the appropriate forum. &&..&&&&&&&&. Sashikanta Mishra, Judge Orissa High Court, Cuttack. The 31st October, 2025/ A.K. Rana, P.A. Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: AJAYA KUMAR RANA Designation: P.A. Reason: Authentication Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACK Date: 31-Oct-2025 18:11:59 Page 16 of 16