The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK WP(C ) No.16154 of 2024 Bijay Kumar Patra ..... Petitioner Mr.P.K. Rath,Sr.Adv. along with Mr.A.Behera, Adv. -versus- State of Odisha & Others ..... Opp. Parties Mr. S. Jena, AGA Mr. S.K. Mishra, Sr.Advocate (for O.P. No.4 & 5) THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY CORAM: ORDER 20.08.2024 Order No.9 1. 2. 3. This matter is taken up through hybrid mode. Heard learned counsel for the parties. Petitioner has filed the present Writ Petition inter alia with the following prayer. “The Petitioner, therefore, prays that your Lordships would be graciously pleased to admit this Writ Petition, call for the records and after hearing the parties allow the same, issue writ/writs in the nature of certiorari/mandamus and/or any other further quash suspension order dated 12.06.2024, order fixation of head for dated 14.06.2024 writ/direction and . for approval 10.07.2024 Autonomous Party No.3
Legal Reasoning
passed by this Court in the case of Dr.Premalata Rout Vs. State of Orissa & Others, Opp. Party No.5should not have been appointed as Principal In-charge of the College in place of the Petitioner. It is accordingly contended that the order of suspension so passed under Annexure-1 is not sustainable in the eye of law so also the appointment of Opp. Party No.5 as Principal-in-Charge of the College vide Order dt.12.06.2024 under Annexure-3,which requires interference of this Court. 5. Learned Addl. Govt. Advocate on the other hand contended that subsequent to such order of suspension passed on 12.06.2024 under Annexure-1, the Governing body in its resolution dt. 14.06.2024 under Annexure-4 approved the order of suspension so issued on 12.06.2024 and forwarded a copy of the said Resolution vide letter dt.14.06.2024 under Annexure- A/1 to the affidavit for approval. Government-Opp. Party No.1 while approving the same vide order dt.10.07.2024 under Annexure-5, but never . approvedthe cancellation of two (2) increments, so reflected in Office Order dt.12.06.2024. 6. To the stand taken to the affidavit so filed by Opp. Party No.1, learned Sr. Counsel appearing for the Petitioner contended that since prior to passing of the resolution on dt.14.06.2024 under Annexure-4, Petitioner was placed under suspension vide Office Order dt.12.06.2024, Opp. Party No.1 could not have approved the resolution passed by the Governing body under Annexure-4 and the same is contrary to the provisions contained under Rule 21 of the Orissa Education(Recruitment and Conditions of Service of Teachers and Members of the Staff of Aided Educational Institutions) Rules, 1974. 2nd proviso to Rule 21(2) of the Rules reads as under: “[Provided that in case of suspension of employees falling under Clauses (a) and (b) the prior approval of the Inspector in respect of any employee serving in a School and of the Director in relation to any other employee is obtained:] that further [Provided the Managing Committee or the Governing Body, as the case may be, may place an employee under suspension at the initiation of disciplinary proceedings for a period of thirty days, pending approval of Inspector or the Director, as the case may be.]” 6.1. Learned Sr. Counsel appearing for the Petitioner accordingly contended that since vide Order dt.10.07.2024 under Annexure-5 the resolution of the . Governing Body so passed on 14.06.2024 has been accepted, it cannot be held compliance of the provisions contained under the 2ndproviso to Rule 21(2) of the Rules and no such of order of approval could have been issued by the Government- Opp. Party No.1. 7. Mr. S.K. Mishra, learned Sr. counsel appearing for Opp. Party No.3 & 5on the other hand made his submission basing on the affidavit filed by Opp. Party No.5 and the earlier affidavit filed by Opp. Party No.3. 7.1. Learned Sr.Counsel appearing for Opp. Party Nos.3 & 5 contended that the order of suspension passed on 12.06.2024 under Annexure-1was approved by the Governing Body in its resolution dt.14.6.2024 under Annexure-4. The same when was forwarded to the Government, Government-Opp. Party No.1 approved the order of suspension so passed on 12.06.2024 vide Order dt.10.07.2024 under Annexure-5, but with certain modification. 7.2. It is also contended that while accepting the order of suspension to have been issued rightly. Petitioner vide his letter dt.7.8.2024 under Annexure 2/3 filed to the affidavit has prayed for release of the suspension allowance for the month of June & July, 2024. 7.3. It is also contended that such order of approval was issued by the Government after giving due opportunity of hearing to the Petitioner and the Governing Body. Learned Sr. Counsel accordinglycontended that not only Petitioner has been rightly suspension placed under . vide
Arguments
quarter at SVM Autonomous College, passed by the President of Governing Body SVM College, and Jagatsinghpur/Opp. resolution dated 14.06.2024 passed by the governing body SVM Autonomous College, under Annexure-1,2,3 & 4 & Office Order dated of suspension proposal, passed by the Special Secretary to Government Higher Education Department & Office Order dated 04.07.2024 passed by the Special Secretary to Education Department for approval of appointment of Smt. Bandita Das/Opposite Party No.5 Reader in Chemistry as Principal in Charge SVM Autonomous College, Jagatsinghpur under Annexure-5 & 6 respectively and direct the Opposite Parties to re-instate the in Petitioner as Principal-cum-Secretary SVM Autonomous College, Jagatsinghpur with all consequential service benefits within a stipulated period. Government Higher 4. Learned counsel for the Petitioner contended that vide Office Order dt.12.06.2024 so issued under Annexure-1, Petitioner was placed under suspension by Opp. Party No.3. Subsequent to such order issued on 12.6.2024, vide order issued on self-same date under Annexure-3, one Smt. Bandita Das-Opp. Party No.5 was appointed as Principal In-charge of the College in place of the Petitioner. However, after placing the Petitioner under suspension vide Order dt.12.06.2014,videresolution dt.14.06.2024 under Annexure-4, the order of suspension passed on 12.06.2024 was approved by the Governing Body and the same was forwarded to the Government for approval. . 4.1. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Petitioner contended that since prior to placing the Petitioner under suspension vide Office Order dt.12.06.2024 under Annexure-1, the Governing body had never authorised Opp. Party No.4to pass any such order, no such order of suspension could have been issued on 12.06.2024,as the resolution to that effect was only passed on 14.06.2024 under Annexure-4. 4.2. It is also contended that on the face of the order
Decision
order dt.12.06.2024 but also the same has been rightly approved by the Government -Opp. Party No.1 vide its communication dt.10.07.2024 under Annexure-5. 7.4. However, learned Sr. Counsel fairly contended that in the meantime, the term of the Governing body- Opp. Party No.3 has expired and no body has been appointed by the Government to manage the affairs of the College. 8. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and considering the submission made, this Court finds that Petitioner was placed under suspension vide Office Order dt.12.06.2024 so issued by Opp. Party No.3 under Annexure-1. It is not disputed by either of the parties that after being placed under suspension vide Office order dt.12.06.2024 , the Governing body approved the same in its proceeding dt.14.06.2024 under Annexure-4. After approving the same, when vide letter dt.14.06.2024 under Annexure-A/1 to the affidavit filed by Opp. Party No.1, Governing body moved the Government seeking approval of the order of suspension, the same was accepted vide Orderdt.10.07.2024 under Annexure-5 to the Writ Petition. As per considered view of this Court that since Petitioner was placed under suspension prior to any decision being taken by the Governing Body and such a decision was only taken on 14.06.2024 under Annexure-4, petitioner could not have been placed under suspension vide the impugned order dt. . 12.06.2024 so issued by Opp. Party No.4 under Annexure-1. 8.1. It is also the view of this Court that the resolution approving the order of suspension could not have been approved by the Government-Opp. Party No.1 vide its order dt.10.07.2024 under Annexure-4, as Petitioner prior to passing of such resolution had already been placed under suspension vide order dt.12.06.2024 under Annexure-1, so issued by O.P. No.4. As provided under the 2nd Proviso to Rule 21(2) of the Rules, Opp. Party No.1 was required to approve the order of suspension, but not the decision taken by the Governing Body in its Resolution dt.14.06.2024. 8.2. Therefore, this Court is inclined to quash the order of suspension so passed against the Petitioner on 12.06.2024 under Annexure-1 and the consequential approval made by the Government-Opp. Party No.1 vide order dt.10.07.2024 under Annexure-5. 8.3. While quashing both the orders under Annexures-1 & 5, this Court placing reliance on the decision in the case of Dr. Premalata Rout, as cited supra directs Opp. Party No.1 to allow some senior Lecturer of nearby college to act as Principal In-charge of the college in question till formation of the common cadre. This Court directs Opp. Party No.1 to pass an order in that regard within a period of 10(ten) days from the date of receipt of this order. The Writ Petition is accordingly disposed of. . Free copy of this order be provided to Mr. S. Jena, learned Addl. Govt. Advocate for compliance. sangita ( BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY) Judge Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: SANGITA PATRA Reason: authenticatin of order Location: high court of orissa, cuttack Date: 28-Aug-2024 19:19:20 .