The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C) No.21830 of 2025 Bimal Pattnaik …. Petitioner Mr. S. Roy, Advocate State of Odisha & Anr. -versus- …. Opp. Parties Mr. M.R. Mohanty, AGA CORAM: JUSTICE BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY ORDER 26.08.2025 Order No. 02. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual/Physical) Mode. 2. Heard learned counsel appearing for the Parties. 3. Pursuant to the order dtd.06.08.2025, learned Addl. Government Advocate for the State produced the instruction so provided by the Director of Printing, Stationery & Publication, Odisha, Cuttack vide letter dtd.22.08.2025. The same be kept in record. 4. Petitioner has filed the present Writ Petition inter alia with the following prayer:- “It is therefore prayed that this Hon’ble Court may graciously be pleased to admit the writ petition and issue Rule "NISI" to the Opp. Parties to show cause as to; (i) Why the Impugned order of dismissal dated 19.07.2024 passed by Opposite Party No. 2 under // 2 // Annexure-2 in the facts and circumstances of the case will not be declared as illegal and as such liable to be set aside, and (ii) Why the impugned order dated 17.06.2025 passed by the Opposite Party No. 1 under Annexure-6 in the facts and circumstances of the case will not be declared as illegal and as such liable to be set aside; and (iii) Why Opposite Party No. 2 will not be directed to reinstate the petitioner in service forthwith; and (iv) Why the Opposite Party No. 2 will not be to regularize the period from directed 19.07.2024 till the date of his reinstatement and grant all consequential service and financial benefits within a stipulated time; And if the Opposite Parties do not show cause, then the Rule be made absolute by issuing appropriate writ/writs and any other order as deem fit be passed; And for this act of kindness, petitioner shall as in duty bound ever pray.” 4.1. Learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner contended that Petitioner while continuing as against the post of Junior Reader in the establishment of Opposite Party No.2, he was terminated from his services vide office order dtd.19.07.2024 under Annexure-2 inter alia on the ground that basing on the complaint made by the complainant, the Internal Complaints Committee in its report dtd.19.07.2024 has found the Petitioner guilty of the allegation and accordingly, taking recourse to the provisions contained under Article-311 (2) (b) of the Constitution of India read with Rule-18(1) of the OCS (CCA) Rules, 1962 (in short ‘Rules’), Petitioner was dismissed from his services with immediate effect. Page 2 of 9 // 3 // 4.2. It is contended that the complaint basing on which the Internal Complaint Committee (in short ‘Committee’) submitted the report and accordingly Petitioner was terminated from his services vide order dtd.19.07.2024 was never provided to the Petitioner nor Petitioner was given an opportunity by the Committee prior to submission of the report. It is accordingly contended that since the report, prepared by the Committee is an ex-parte report and the same having not been prepared and submitted in accordance with the provisions contained under the Sexual Harassment of Women at Work Place (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013 and the Rules farmed thereunder the impugned order of termination, is not sustainable in the eye of law. 4.3. It is contended that the alleged complaint was made on 18.07.2024 and Petitioner on the very next date was terminated from his services, basing on the report submitted by the Committee on 19.07.2024. It is also contended that Petitioner was never given an opportunity to defend himself before the Committee and accordingly the report submitted by the Internal Complaint Committee on 19.07.2024 could not have been relied on by Opposite Party No.2, prior to dismissing the Petitioner from his services vide the impugned order. Page 3 of 9 // 4 // 4.4. It is contended that Rule-7 of the Sexual Harassment of Women at Work Place (Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal) Act, 2013 prescribed the modalities to deal with such complaints made by the victim. Rule-7(2) to 7(4) of the 2013 Rules prescribes as under:- “7(2)On receipt of the complaint, the Complaints Committee shall send one of the copies received from the aggrieved woman under sub-rule (1) to the respondent within a period of seven working days. (3) The respondent shall file his reply to the complaint along with his list of documents, and names and addresses of witnesses, within a period not exceeding ten working days from the date of receipt of the documents specified under sub-rule (1). (4) The Complaints Committee shall make inquiry into the complaint in accordance with the principles of natural justice.” 4.5. It is contended that since the paraphernalia provided under the aforesaid 2013 Act and the 2013 Rules framed thereunder were never followed, basing on any such complaint and the report submitted by the Committee, Petitioner could not have been terminated from his services taking recourse to the provisions contained under Article 311 (2)(b) of the Constitution of India read with Rule 18 of the Rules. 4.6. It is also vehemently contended that the complaint which is the basis for such termination was never provided to the Petitioner nor Petitioner was given an opportunity to have his say before the Page 4 of 9 // 5 // Committee as provided under Rule-7(2) to 7(4) of the 2013 Rules. The Committee made an ex parte enquiry and submitted the report on 19.07.2024 just within 1(one) day of the complaint, basing on which Petitioner was terminated vide the impugned
Decision
order dtd.19.07.2024. 4.7. It is further contended that even though Petitioner moved an appeal before the appellate authority- Opposite Party No.1 challenging the order of dismissal so passed on 19.07.2024, but the appellate authority- Opposite Party No.1 vide order dtd.17.06.2025 under Annexure-6 confirmed the order of dismissal, while rejecting the appeal. 4.8. It is accordingly contended that since the very basis of termination of the Petitioner i.e. the complaint made by the complainant on 18.07.2024 was never provided to the Petitioner nor Petitioner was given an opportunity to defend himself before the Committee as provided under Rule-7(2) to 7(4) of the 2013 Rules, basing on such ex parte enquiry report dtd.19.07.2024, no action could have been taken in terminating the Petitioner from his services vide order dtd.19.07.2024 under Annexure-2. 4.9. It is accordingly contended that the impugned order of termination passed on 19.07.2024 under Annexure-2, further confirmed vide order Page 5 of 9 // 6 // dtd.17.06.2025 under Annexure-6 are not sustainable in the eye of law and it requires interference of this Court. 5. Basing on the instruction, learned Addl. Government Advocate for the State contended that Petitioner while in service, a complaint was made by the victim before the Vice-Principal, Printing, Stationery & Publication, Cuttack on 18.07.2024 and the Internal Complaint Committee so formed, accepted the complaint and submitted the report on 19.07.2024. Basing on such report submitted by the Internal Complaint Committee on 19.07.2024, the order of dismissal was passed by Opposite Party No.2 vide order dtd.19.07.2024 under Annexure-2 taking recourse to the provisions contained under Article 311(2)(b) of the Constitution of India read with Rule-18 of the Rules. 5.1. It is contended that since the Internal Complaint Committee finds the complaint dtd.18.07.2024 to be true and correct while submitting the report against the Petitioner on 19.07.2024, there was no occasion to go for enquiry by following the provisions contained under Rule-15 of the OCS (CCA) Rules, 1962. 5.2. It is also contended that order passed by the Director-Opposite Party No.2 when was assailed by the Petitioner by filing an appeal, the same has been Page 6 of 9 // 7 // confirmed by the appellate authority-Opp. Party No. 1 vide order dtd.17.06.2025 under Annexure-6. 5.3. It is also contended that taking into account the nature of allegation made by the victim in her complaint dtd.18.07.2024, which was accepted by the Internal Complaint Committee with the submission of the report on 19.07.2024, no further enquiry was required to be made. It is accordingly contended that the impugned order of dismissal has been rightly passed under Annexure-2, further confirmed vide order under Annexure-6. 6. Having heard learned counsel appearing for the Parties and considering the submissions made, this Court finds that Petitioner entered into service on 09.09.2008 and while continuing as against the post of Junior Reader in the establishment of Opposite Party No.2, he was terminated from his services vide order dtd.19.07.2024 under Annexure-2. 6.1. As found from the impugned order, Petitioner was so terminated, basing on the report submitted by the Internal Complaint Committee on 19.07.2024, so formed under the provisions of the aforesaid 2013 Act on 19.07.2024 itself. As further found, the complaint was made by the Victim on 18.07.2024 and the Internal Complaint Committee so formed found the allegations made in the complaint to be true and Page 7 of 9 // 8 // correct. Accordingly, the Committee submitted the report on 19.07.2024 and basing on such report, Petitioner was terminated from his services vide the impugned order dtd.19.07.2024 under Annexure-2. 6.2. Since as provided under the 2013 Act and Rule-7 of the 2013 Rules, prior to submission of the report by the Committee, Petitioner was never provided with the complaint nor he was allowed to take part in the proceeding before the Committee, as per the considered view of this Court, basing on such ex-parte report of the Committee, no action could have been taken against the Petitioner by exercising the power under Article -311(2)(b) of the Constitution of India read with Rule-18 of the Rules. 6.3. Since the complaint made against the Petitioner by the victim on 18.07.2025 has not been proved in terms of the provisions contained under the aforesaid 2013 Act and Rule-7 of the 2013 Rules and Petitioner prior to his termination from service was never provided with the copy of the complaint which is the basis of such termination, it is the view of this Court that the ground on which Petitioner has been terminated vide the impugned order dtd.19.07.2024 under Annexure-2 is not sustainable in the eye of law. It is also the view of this Court that Opposite Party No.1 without proper appreciation rejected the appeal vide order dtd.17.06.2025 under Annexure-6. Page 8 of 9 // 9 // 6.4. In view of the aforesaid analysis, this Court is inclined to quash order dtd.19.07.2024 so passed by Opposite Party No.2 under Annexure-2, further confirmed vide order dtd.17.06.2025 of Opposite Party No.1 under Annexure-6. While quashing both the orders, this Court directs Opposite Party No.2 to reinstate the Petitioner in his services with passing of an appropriate order within a period of two (2) weeks hence. Break period of service be also regularized on notional basis. 6.5. However, this Court observes that such reinstatement will not debar the authority to proceed against the Petitioner, taking into account the complaint made by the victim on 18.07.2024 and by following the provisions contained under the 2013 Act and the Rules famed thereunder. This Court expresses no opinion on such action of the Opp. Parties and it is open for them to take appropriate action in accordance with the 2013 Act and Rules framed there under. 7. Accordingly, the Writ Petition stands disposed of. Subrat Judge (Biraja Prasanna Satapathy) Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: SUBRAT KUMAR BARIK Reason: Authentication Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACK Date: 25-Sep-2025 12:07:31 Page 9 of 9