The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C) Nos.16129, 15923, 15939, 16080, 16081, 16082, 16109, 16112, 16114, 16116, 16137 & 16167 of 2025 Udit Kumar Bhoi …. State of Odisha & Ors. …. -versus- Petitioner Mr. J.K. Rath, Sr. Advocate with Mr. D.N. Rath, Advocate Opp. Parties Mr. S.K. Jee, AGA Mr. N. Sarkar, Advocate for O.P. Nos.6 and 7-Caveator Order No. 01. CORAM: JUSTICE BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY ORDER 11.07.2025 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual/Physical) Mode.
Legal Reasoning
2. Heard Mr. J.K. Rath, learned Senior Counsel along with Mr. D.N. Rath, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. N. Sarkar, learned counsel who has entered appearance through Caveat for O.P. Nos.6 and 7. 3. Since all these Writ Petitions involve a common issue, all the matters were heard analogously and disposed of by the present common order. 4. It is the case of the petitioners in the present batch of Writ Petitions that the petitioners while working as regular employees in the establishment of O.P. No.7, show causes // 2 // were issued to them on different dates starting from 13.05.2025 to 15.05.2025 with a request on the petitioners to submit their replies within 7(seven) days of the receipt of the notice. 4.1. It is contended that in terms of the stipulation contained in the notice to show-cause, all the petitioners submitted their replies within the stipulated time period i.e. within 7 (seven) days of the receipt of the show-cause i.e. during the period 20.05.2025 to 22.05.2025, it is contended that without proper consideration and appreciation of the replies so submitted by the petitioners and without giving an opportunity of hearing, all the petitioners were terminated vide the impugned orders passed during the period 24.05.2025 to 27.05.2025, so
Decision
impugned in the writ petitions. 4.2. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners vehemently contended that since petitioners are regular employees working under O.P. No.7, after issuance of the show-causes starting from 13.05.2025 to 15.05.2025, with submission of the replies starting from 20.05.2025 to 22.05.2025, petitioners could not have been terminated vide orders issued starting from 24.05.2025 to 27.05.2025, i.e. within two days of the submission of the replies. 4.3. It is contended that since on the face of the record it is quite apparent that the replies so submitted by the petitioners were never considered with application of judicial mind and without giving an opportunity of hearing, impugned order of termination was passed in the present batch of Writ Petitions. It is accordingly contended that the Page 2 of 6 // 3 // impugned orders of termination are not sustainable in the eye of law and requires interference of this Court. It is also contended that institution in question since is having an approved Managing Committee, show-causes could not have been issued by the Principal of the College and in the show causes so issued nothing has been indicated that Principal of the College has been authorized to issue such show-causes. It is also contended that even though in compliance of the same, reply was submitted by the petitioners before the Principal-in-Charge but the impugned order was passed by the Secretary of the College but that too without any reflection that the Managing Committee approved such decision. 5. Learned counsel appearing for O.P. Nos.6 and 7 through caveat on the other hand contended that since petitioners were terminated by following due process of law with issuance of the show causes starting from 13.05.2025 to 15.05.2025, it amounts to compliance of principle of natural justice and no illegality or irregularity can be found with such action of the O.P. Nos.6 and 7 in terminating the services of the petitioners. 5.1. A further contention was also made that service condition of the present petitioners are governed by the Service Rules of Pharmaceutical College, Barpali, it was made effective from 19.02.2018. Placing reliance on Rule- 7.2 of the Rules, it is contended that since petitioners were permanent employees of the institution, in view of the provisions contained under Rule-7.2, the employees Page 3 of 6 // 4 // concerned can be terminated without enquiry. Rule-7.2 of the Rules reads as follows:- “(a) The Competent Authority may terminate the services of a permanent employee on reasonable grounds in the interest of the Institution by giving three- month notice or one month salary in lieu of such a notice. (b) Notwithstanding anything contained in this rule, no notice shall be necessary in the termination of service of a probationer.” 5.2. It is accordingly contended that since prior to such termination of the petitioners, respective show causes were issued, the institution by following the principle of natural justice and Rule-7.2 of the Rules, has rightly terminated the petitioners, which requires no interference. Salary in lieu of one month notice has also been deposited in the respective accounts of the petitioners. 6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and considering the submissions made, this Court finds that petitioners who are permanent employees working in the establishment of O.P. Nos.6 and 7, were issued with respective show-causes starting from 13.05.2025 to 15.05.2025. As found, all the petitioners submitted their replies within the time stipulated in the show-cause starting from 20.05.2025 to 22.05.2025. As further found from the records, all the petitioners were terminated vide orders issued by the Secretary of the College starting from 24.05.2025 to 27.05.2025. 6.1. This Court taking into account the materials available, is of the view that after issuance of the show- causes starting from 13.05.2025 to 15.05.2025 and receipt Page 4 of 6 // 5 // of the replies starting from 20.05.2025 to 22.05.2025, petitioners could not have been terminated vide orders issued starting from 24.05.2025 to 27.05.2025 and the manner in which the petitioners were terminated, it is the view of this Court that the same has been taken in a haste and without proper appreciation of the replies given by the petitioners. 6.2. It is also the view of this Court that Rule-7.2 of the Rules so relied on by the O.P. Nos.6 and 7, cannot be made applicable as the said provision was not complied prior to terminating the petitioners from their services vide orders issued from 24.05.2025 to 27.05.2025. Not only that since without any authority of the Managing Committee, show causes were issued by the Principal of the College and the impugned order has been passed by the Secretary of the Managing Committee, all these orders are also not sustainable in the eye of law. 6.3. In view of the aforesaid analysis, this Court is inclined to quash the orders of termination issued by the Secretary of the institution so impugned in the present batch of Writ Petitions. While quashing the orders of termination so issued in all these batch of Writ Petitions, this Court remits the matter to the Managing Committee-O.P. No.6 to take a fresh decision considering the stand taken by the petitioners in their respective replies and by giving an opportunity of hearing. Such a fresh decision be taken in accordance with law, in which this Court expresses no opinion. Page 5 of 6 // 6 // 7. All these batch of Writ Petitions stand disposed of. Photocopy of this order be placed in other connected matters. (Biraja Prasanna Satapathy) Judge Basudev Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BASUDEV SWAIN Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Date: 14-Jul-2025 15:51:59 Page 6 of 6