In the matter of an application under Articles 226 & 227 of Constitution of v. Collector-cum-Dist, Magistratte, Rayagada and Ors
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C) No. 21658 of 2025 In the matter of an application under Articles 226 & 227 of Constitution of India. --------------- Sabita Bag …… Petitioner - Versus - Collector-cum-Dist, Magistratte, Rayagada and Ors. ...…. Opp. Parties Advocates appeared in the case through hybrid mode: _________________________________________________________ For Petitioner
Legal Reasoning
: Mr. D.Sethi, Advocate For Opp. Parties : Mr. S.N. Pattnaik, Addl. Government Advocate Mrs. J.Tripathy, Special Counsel for MGNREGS matter _________________________________________________________ CORAM: JUSTICE SASHIKANTA MISHRA JUDGMENT 20th August, 2025 SASHIKANTA MISHRA, J. The petitioner, in the present writ application seeks to challenge order dated 01.07.2025 passed by the Page 1 of 7 Director, Special Projects-cum-Appellate authority whereby the appeal filed by the petitioner was rejected. 2. The facts of the case, briefly stated are that the petitioner was working as Gram Rozgar Sevak in Seriguma Gram Panchayat under K.Singhpur block in the district of Rayagada having been engaged since 15.07.2013. While working as such, a show-cause notice was issued to her by the Collector on 06.04.2018 asking her to explain the following irregularities: through of Govt. money in Bank accounts numbers of PMAY 1. Mis-appropriation manipulations beneficiaries 2. GEO tagging without case records 3. Suppression and misleading of facts to the authority The petitioner submitted her reply to the show-cause clarifying her stand to the effect that selection of beneficiaries under the PMAY was not her responsibility. Further, she was on strike at the time of the registration of the beneficiaries and geo-tagging of the houses. The Sarpanch of the Gram Panchayat asked her to hand over her Mobile phone as the houses needed to be geo-tagged and on good faith the petitioner handed over her mobile to Page 2 of 7 the Sarpanch using which the houses were geo-tagged. The petitioner immediately brought such fact to the notice of the PEO and subsequently she was also forced by the Sarpanch to geo-tag beneficiaries for the second time. The Collector, Rayagada vide order dated 31.05.2018 did not accept the explanation so submitted and directed her disengagement. The petitioner initially challenged such order before this
Decision
Court in W.P.(C). No. 10075 of 2018, which was disposed of granting her liberty to prefer appeal before the appellate authority. The petitioner accordingly preferred appeal which was disposed of by order dated 01.07.2025, which is impugned in the present writ application. 3. Heard Mr. D. Sethi, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. S.N.Pattnaik, learned AGA for the State and Mrs. J.R.Tripathy, learned Special Counsel. 4. Mr. Sethi would submit that the show-cause reply submitted by the petitioner was not considered by the Collector as well as the appellate authority. Further, the appellate authority despite observing that the petitioner had Page 3 of 7 acted under duress did not accept her explanation and rejected the appeal. The petitioner was not responsible for registration of beneficiaries and geo-tagging of the houses as she was on strike at the relevant time. 5. Learned State counsel submits that the Collector as well as the appellate authority did not accept the explanation submitted by the petitioner as inquiry conducted by the BDO revealed otherwise. 6. Mrs. Tripathy, while adopting the arguments made by Mr. Pattnaik, further submits that the inquiry revealed that the petitioner was herself responsible for manipulation of records to show the names of ineligible beneficiaries. 7. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and on going through the impugned order, this Court finds that the appellate authority has noted the facts of the case, the specific allegations levelled against the petitioner as per the show-cause notice as also the reply to such-show cause submitted by the petitioner. After noting the above, the appellate authority appears to have abruptly arrived at the Page 4 of 7 conclusion that the petitioner is guilty of the misconduct alleged. There is no independent finding as regards the veracity of the allegations. It is trite that the appellate authority is required to record his subjective satisfaction as regards the guilt or otherwise of the appellant before him. In the instant case, the appellate authority has observed under paragraph 7 as under : “7. In reply to the Show Cause, the appellant submitted that the beneficiary selection under PMAY was not her responsibility and she was on strike while the beneficiaries were registered and the houses were geo-tagged. She handed over the phone to the Sarpanch through which the house were geotagged. She had intimated about the irregularities regarding change of the name of beneficiaries to the PEO concerned. However, she geotagged the houses herself the second time under duress from the Sarpanch concerned.” It is evident that there has been no independent application of judicial mind by the appellate authority to the explanation submitted by the petitioner vis-(cid:224)-vis the allegations levelled against her. The so-called inquiry conducted by the AE and GPTA of the block at the instance of the BDO has been referred to but then, there is nothing on record to show that the petitioner was allowed to participate in such inquiry or that she was granted opportunity to have her say in the matter. Page 5 of 7 8. For the foregoing reasons therefore, this Court is of the considered view that the impugned order cannot be said to have been passed by complying with the principles of natural justice. The principle of ‘Audi alteram Partem’ appears to have been violated in the case inasmuch as the report of the inquiry basing on which the appellate authority has found the petitioner guilty was prepared and submitted without granting any opportunity of hearing to her. 9. For the reasons indicated above, the impugned order cannot be sustained in the eye of law. 10. In the result, the writ application is allowed. The impugned order is set aside. The matter is remitted to the Director, Special Projects-cum-appellate authority to hear the appeal afresh. The appellate authority shall do well to cause necessary inquiry so as to be subjectively satisfied as regards veracity of the allegations of misconduct levelled against the petitioner in the show cause notice. In doing so, the appellate authority shall take note of the explanation submitted by the petitioner to such allegations. The appeal Page 6 of 7 shall be finally disposed of after granting opportunity of hearing to all concerned within eight weeks from the date of production of certified copy of this order by the petitioner. ……..……………………. Sashikanta Mishra, Judge Deepak Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: DEEPAK PARIDA Reason: Authentication Location: OHC,Cuttack Date: 22-Aug-2025 18:10:03 Page 7 of 7