The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C) No.15097 of 2022 Narayan Chand …. Petitioner -versus- State of Odisha & Ors. …. Opposite Parties CORAM: JUSTICE BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY Order No 06. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement
Decision
ORDER 17.03.2023 (Virtual/Physical) Mode. 2. Heard Mr. Nihal Rath, learned counsel for the Petitioner and Mr. Nilambar Jena, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the Opp. Parties. 3. The Petitioner is aggrieved by the communication dtd.02.06.2022 issued by the District Project Coordinator-O.P. No. 4, wherein the BEO-O.P. No. 6 has been directed to initiate a disciplinary proceeding against the Petitioner under Rule 15 of the OCS (CCA) Rules, 1962 as well as with a prayer to direct the Opp. Parties to extend the benefit of promotion to Level V(B) as per the recommendation of the DLPC under Annexure-5 and approval accorded by the Director of Elementary Education vide order dtd.26.11.2021. // 2 // 4. Learned counsel for the Petitioner contended that while working as a Swechhasevi Sikshya Sahayak the Petitioner remained in judicial custody for the period from 02.10.2001 to 16.10.2001 in relation to Salipur P.S. Case No. 169/2001 corresponding to G.R. Case No. 353 of 2001 pending in the file of learned J.M.F.C., Salipur. 4.1. Learned counsel for the Petitioner contended that after his release on bail, the Petitioner while submitting his joining report before the Headmaster, Aenda U.P.(M.E.) School on 17.10.2001 under Annexure-16, clearly indicated that he was in judicial custody from 02.10.2001 to 16.10.2001. In spite of such mentioning, the Petitioner was not only allowed to join in his post, but also he was allowed to continue as a regular Primary School Teacher. 4.2. Learned counsel for the Petitioner further contended that seeking quashing of the F.I.R. in Salipur P.S. Case No. 169/2001 corresponding to G.R. Case No. 353/2001, the Petitioner approached this Court in CRLMC No. 289/2003 This Court vide order dtd.16.09.2003 under Annexure-2 was also pleased to quash the proceeding in G.R. Case No. 353 of 2001 against the Petitioner. It is contended that while the matter stood thus, the Petitioner Page 2 of 6 // 3 // though was found eligible for his promotion to the post of Level V Sr. Teacher, but in stead of extending him the benefit of promotion, the impugned communication under Annexure-13 was issued by the Opp. Party No. 4 directing the Opp. Party No. 6 to initiate a proceeding under Rule 15 of the OCS (CCA) Rues, 1962 on the ground that he was in custody from 02.10.2001 to 16.10.2001 and did not disclose the said fact to the authority concerned. Accordingly, it is contended that since the Petitioner had very much brought the said fact to the notice of the Headmaster of the School while submitting his joining on 17.10.2001 under Annexure-16 and since in the meantime the criminal proceeding so initiated against the Petitioner has been quashed by this Court vide order dtd.16.09.2003 under Annexure-2 the direction issued under Annexure-13 is not sustainable in the eye of law. 5. Mr. N. Jena, learned Standing Counsel on the other hand made his submission basing on the stand taken in the counter affidavit. It is contended that even though the Petitioner was found eligible for his promotion to Level V(B), but basing on the complaint made by a co-teacher namely Sri Sitakanta Samal, the matter was enquired into and when it was found that the Petitioner had suppressed his remaining in custody from 02.10.2001 to 17.10.2001, direction was Page 3 of 6 // 4 // issued by Opp. Party No. 4 to initiate a proceeding against the Petitioner. 5.1. The relevant stand taken in Para 3 of the counter filed by Opp. Party No. 6 is quoted hereunder:- “Though the petitioner while continuing as Swechhasevi Sikshya Sahayak he was involved in a criminal offences and in connection with said criminal offence he was taken to custody and detained for about 15 days as such information was not available with the authorities of the Government the act of preparation of gradation list and enlisting the name of the in the Level-V(A) teachers for consideration of his case for promotion to level-V(B) all these acts have been committed under a bonafide impression that the petitioner is eligible to be promoted from level-V(A) to level-V(B). While the matter stood thus an allegation petition was filed by Sitakanta Samal, Asst. Teacher, Level-V(A) Bapuji Govt. High School, Patapur alleging therein that the petitioner who is in Chaudwar Central Jail from 2.10.2001 to 17.10.2001 by the order of the learned JMFC, Salipur in a minor girl kidnapping case and showing the jail period as working days took salary and renewed his service hiding the truth. Hence the said Sitakanta Samal in his complaint requested not to take steps for his promotion to level- V(B).” 5.2. Accordingly, it is contended that since the Petitioner suppressed his remaining in custody from 02.10.2001 to 16.10.2001 in relation to the G.R. Case No. 353 of 2001, no illegality has been committed by the Authority in directing for initiation of the proceeding and consequential denial of promotion. Page 4 of 6 // 5 // 6. Heard learned counsel appearing for the Parties. Perused the materials available on record. This Court after going through the same finds that there is no dispute that the Petitioner remained in judicial custody from 02.10.2001 to 16.10.2001 with regard to Salipur P.S. Case No. 169 of 2001 corresponding to G.R. Case No. 353 of 2001. It is also found from the record that after being released from custody, the Petitioner while submitted his joining report before the Headmaster, Ainda U.P. (M.E.) School on 17.10.2001 under Annexure-16, he disclosed about his remaining in custody from 02.10.2001 to 16.10.2001. In spite of such notice being given by the Petitioner, no further action was taken on the Petitioner and the Petitioner was not only allowed to continue in his work but also he was regularized as a Primary School Teacher. Not only that from the record it is found that the Petitioner has been found eligible to get the benefit of promotion to Level V(B). But basing on the complaint made by a co-teacher, the matter was enquired into and when it was found that the Petitioner has suppressed his remaining in custody for the period in question, the impugned direction was issued to initiate the proceeding. 6.1. As per the considered view of this Court the Petitioner has never suppressed the factum of his remaining in custody from 02.10.2001 to 16.10.2001 in view of the intimation given under Page 5 of 6 // 6 // Annexure-16. This Court further finds that the proceeding initiated against the Petitioner in G.R. Case No. 353 of 2001 for which the Petitioner remained in custody for the period in question has been quashed by this Court vide order dt.16.09.2003 under Annexure-2. In view of such admitted position, this Court finds the action of the Opp. Party No. 4 in issuing Annexure-13 as not sustainable in the eye of law. 6.2. Therefore, while interfering with the same, this Court is inclined to quash the direction so issued vide Annexure-13. Not only that any further action taken in pursuance of Annexure-13 in the meantime shall also be treated as quashed. This Court further directs that if the Petitioner has been found eligible for his promotion to Level V(B), necessary corollary action be taken by the concerned authority. 7. The writ petition is disposed of with the aforesaid observation and direction. (Biraja Prasanna Satapathy) Judge Sneha Page 6 of 6