The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK WP(C) No.19509 of 2025 ..... Abinash Mohapatra Petitioner Mr. P.K. Parhi, Advocate State of Odisha & Ors. -versus- ..... CORAM: Opposite Parties Mr. S.K. Jee, AGA THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY ORDER 18.07.2025 Order No.01 1. This matter is taken up through hybrid mode. 2. Heard Mr. P.K. Parhi, learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner and Mr. S.K. Jee, learned Addl. Govt. Advocate appearing for the Opp. Parties. 3. Petitioner has filed the present writ petition inter alia with the following prayer:- “It is therefore humbly prayed that, the Hon’ble Court may graciously be pleased to admit this Writ Application, issue RULE OF NISI calling upon the Opp. Parties to show cause, as to why the letter issued by the Collector, Balasore i.e., 0pp. Party No. 2 on dated 22.05.2025 under Annexure-15 as well as the Joint Enquiry Report dated 23.04.2025 under Annexure- 16 should not be quashed and if the Opp. Parties fails to show cause or show insufficient cause, the said rule be made absolute by way of Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate Writ by Quashing the letter issued by the Page 1 of 8. Collector, Balasore i.e., Opp. Party No. 2 on dated 22.05.2025 under Annexure- 15 as well as the Joint Enquiry Report dated 23.04.2025 under Annexure- 16.; And pass such other order/orders, direction /directions as may be deemed lit and proper; For this act of kindness the petitioner as in duty bound shall remain ever pray.”
Legal Reasoning
since in terms of the earlier order passed by this Court in W.P.(C) No. 28849 of 2024, no enquiry was conducted by giving due opportunity of hearing to the Petitioner and the enquiry was conducted just after one day of his prayer to allow him to be represented by an advocate, the report so prepared under Annexure- 16 and the consequential order passed by Opp. Party No. 2 under Annexure-15 are not sustainable in the eye of law. 4.5. A further submission was also made that prior to causing such an enquiry in terms of the earlier order of this Court, Petitioner was never provided with the complaint basing on which the initial show-cause was issued on 31.08.2024 under Annexure-5. 4.6. It is contended that unless and until Petitioner is provided with the complaint so made basing on which the show-cause was issued under Annexure-5, Petitioner is not in a position to make any reply to the charges. It is accordingly contended that the impugned communication issued by the Collector-Opp. Party No. 2 on Page 4 of 8. 22.05.2025 basing on the impugned enquiry report dtd.23.04.2025 under Annexure-16 are not sustainable in the eye of law and requires interference of this Court. 5. Mr. S.K. Jee, learned Addl. Govt. Advocate on the other hand contended that since on the face of the order passed by this Court in the earlier writ petition and in spite of several intimations given to the Petitioner, Petitioner never participated in the enquiry nor in the proceeding. Opp. Party No. 3 had no other occasion than to conduct the enquiry, which was made on 23.04.2025. In the said enquiry when the allegations made against the Petitioner were found to be true, the said report was prepared and furnished to Opp. Party No. 2. Basing on such report of Opp. Party No. 3, Opp. Party No. 2 upheld the order of termination passed against the Petitioner vide the impugned communication dtd.22.05.2025 under Annexure-15. 5.1. It is contended that since on the face of the earlier order passed by this Court, Petitioner never participated in the enquiry or in the hearing, no illegality or irregularity can be found with the same. 6. Having heard learned counsel appearing for the Parties and considering the submissions made, this Court finds that Petitioner while working as a Cook-cum-Attendant in the School in question, the show-cause was issued on 31.08.2024 under Annexure-5. As Page 5 of 8. found the said show-cause was issued basing on the allegation made against the Petitioner from different quarter. This Court finds that along with the show-cause, Petitioner was never provided with the complaint, basing on which such a show-cause was issued. 6.1. It is therefore the initial view of this Court that, in absence of such complaints being provided to the Petitioner, Petitioner could not have been asked to participate in the enquiry or in the proceeding. It is also the view of this Court that in terms of the earlier order passed by this Court, Petitioner though was noticed to appear initially for hearing and thereafter to participate in the enquiry, but the same has been done in a haste and the enquiry was conducted in a single day i.e. on 23.04.2025 that too in absence of the Petitioner. 6.2. In that view of the matter, this Court is of the view that the entire report submitted under Annexure-16 and the impugned communication issued by the Collector on 22.05.2025 under Annexure-15, are not sustainable in the eye of law and the same has been issued without following the earlier order of this Court. Therefore, this Court is inclined to quash the report dtd.23.04.2025 so issued by Opp. Party No. 3 under Annexure-16 and also the communication issued by the Collector-Opp. Party No. 2 on Page 6 of 8. 22.05.2025 under Annexure-15. While quashing the report as well as the communication issued under Annexure-15 & 16 respectively, this Court remits the matter to Opp. Party No. 2 to take a fresh decision with regard to the allegation made against the Petitioner and the action taken against him in terminating him from his services. 6.3. While directing so, this Court directs Opp. Party No. 2 to provide the Petitioner copies of the complaints made from different quarter, basing on which the show-cause dtd.31.08.2024 was issued under Annexure-5, to the Petitioner within a period of three (3) weeks from the date of receipt of this order. On being provided with the complaints, Petitioner will be allowed four (4) weeks time to file his reply. Thereafter, Opp. Party No. 2 shall take a lawful decision on the same, considering the complaint vis-a-vis the reply and by giving due opportunity of hearing to the Petitioner. Such a fresh decision be taken within a period of two (2) months from the date of receipt of the reply to the show-cause. 6.4. It is however observed that if after being provided with the complaints, Petitioner does not submit his reply within the stipulated time period, Opp. Party No.2 shall be free to take his own decision. Page 7 of 8. 7. With the aforesaid observation and direction, the writ petition
Arguments
4. It is contended that while continuing as a Cook-cum-Attendant in Pinchhabania High School on contractual basis vide order of appointment issued on 22.09.2020, a show-cause was issued to him by Opp. Party No. 3 on 31.08.2024 under Annexure-5, with the intimation that serious allegations have been made against the Petitioner by the Boy boarders of that School, Headmaster concerned and Welfare Extension Officer, Sadar. 4.1. It is contended that subsequent to such issuance of the show- cause, when the Petitioner was terminated vide order dtd.19.09.2024 under Annexure-7, the matter was carried to this Court in W.P.(C) No. 28849 of 2024. This Court vide order dtd.20.01.2025 while setting aside the said order, remits the matter to Opp. Party No. 3 to take a fresh decision in accordance with law. It was observed that if any enquiry is made to prove the charges, then Petitioner be given an opportunity to participate in the same. Page 2 of 8. 4.2. It is contended that pursuant to such order passed by this Court on 20.01.2025 in W.P.(C) No. 28849 of 2024, Petitioner initially was issued with the notice by Opp. Party No. 3 on 01.03.2025 under Annexure-9 by fixing the date of hearing to 07.03.2025. It is contended that prior to fixing such date of hearing, the complaint basing on which the show-cause under Annexure-4 was issued, was never provided to the Petitioner. Thereafter vide letter dtd.21.03.2025 under Annexure-10, the date of hearing was fixed to 28.03.2025 and Petitioner on receipt of the said communication made a request on 03.04.2025 inter alia with a prayer to cause a fresh enquiry in terms of the order passed by this Court. 4.3. It is contended that basing on such request made by the Petitioner under Annexure-10, the date of enquiry was fixed to 23.04.2025 vide letter dtd.16.04.2025 under Annexure-12. It is contended that on receipt of Annexure-12 communication, Petitioner vide letter dtd.19.04.2025 made a request to allow him to appear and participate in the enquiry through a counsel. But the same was rejected vide communication issued on 22.04.2025 under Annexure-14. 4.4. After rejecting such prayer of the Petitioner to allow him to be represented by an Advocate, the enquiry was conducted in absence Page 3 of 8. of the Petitioner on 23.04.2025 itself and report was submitted on the same date also. Basing on such report Opp. Party No. 2 held the disengagement of the Petitioner as just and proper vide the impugned communication dt.22.05.2025 under Annexure-15. 4.4. Learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner contended that
Decision
stands disposed of. Sneha (BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY) Judge Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: SNEHANJALI PARIDA Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Date: 22-Jul-2025 15:07:20 Page 8 of 8.