The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C) No.25677 of 2020 Prahallad Kumar Deb …. Petitioner Mr. B. Satapathy, Advocate State of Orissa & Others -versus- …. Opposite Parties Mr. S.K. Samal, AGA Mr. G.N. Mishra, Adv. for O.P.4 CORAM: JUSTICE BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY ORDER 30.01.2024 Order No. 07. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual/Physical) Mode.
Legal Reasoning
2. Mr. B. Satapathy, learned counsel enters his appearance on behalf of the Petitioner by filing his Vakalatnama in Court today. The same be kept in record. 3. Heard learned counsel appearing for the Parties. 4. Petitioner has filed the present Writ Petition inter alia with the following prayer:- the “Quash impugned office order No.6380 dtd. 22.09.2020 passed by the opp.party no.3 under Annexure-5 and declare the same as illegal and arbitrary and without jurisdiction and further direct the Opposite Parties no.1 to 3 to allow the petitioner to continue as Principal-in-Charge-cum-Secretary of Women’s Higher Secondary School, Deogarh as before keeping in view the office order dtd.19.10.2011 under Annexure-3, and further direct the Opp.Party No.3 not to interfere with the functioning of the petitioner as Principal-in-Charge-cum- Secretary of the College in any manner”. // 2 // 5. Learned counsel for the Petitioner contended that the Petitioner while discharging the duty as Principal-in- Charge-cum-Secretary, Deogarh women’s Higher Secondary School, vide the impugned
Decision
order dtd.22.09.2020 under Annexure-5 was removed as Principal-In-Charge by allowing Opposite Party No.4 to continue in his place. 4.1. It is contended that the Petitioner was initially allowed to continue as Principal-In-Charge of the College in question vide order dtd.19.10.2011 of Opposite Party No.2. But basing on the letter issued by the Addl. Director, Directorate Higher Education on 26.08.2020, Addl. District Magistrate, Deogarh-Opposite Party No.3, issued the impugned order by removing the petitioner from the post of Principal-In-Charge and by allowing Opposite Party No.4 to act as such. 4.2. It is contended that while taking such an extreme step to replace the Petitioner vide the impugned order, no opportunity of hearing was given and it was passed suo- motu basing on the letter issued by the Addl. Director, Directorate Higher Education on 26.08.2020. 4.3. It is also contended that the initial order passed by the Director under Annexure-3 on 19.10.2011 since was never recalled or modified by Opposite Party No.2, Addl. Director was not competent to issue the direction vide his letter dtd.26.08.2020. Page 2 of 5 // 3 // 4.4. It is accordingly contended that since the Petitioner was allowed to continue as Principal-In-Charge with due approval of the Director, Addl. Director in the Office of the Directorate of Higher Secondary could not have issued the direction by allowing Opposite Party No.3 to replace the Petitioner and by allowing Opposite Party No.4 to continue as Principal In-Charge. It is accordingly contended that the impugned office order dtd.22.09.2020 under Annexure-5 is not sustainable in the eye of law. 4.5. Learned counsel for the Petitioner further contended that even though this Court while issuing notice of the matter vide order dtd.09.10.2020 passed an interim order directing for maintenance of status quo, but on the plea that Opposite Party No.4 has already taken charge, Petitioner was not allowed to continue. 5. Mr. G.N. Mishra, learned counsel appearing for Opposite Party Nos.3 & 4 on the other hand contended that since a proceeding was initiated against the Petitioner vide Memorandum dtd.01.10.2020, which was the subject matter of challenge in the connected W.P.(C) No.31899 of 2020, Petitioner was replaced by Opposite Party No.4 and in terms of the order issued on 22.09.2020 under Annexure-5, Opposite Party No.4 is discharging the duty of Principal-In-Charge. 6. Learned Addl. Government Advocate for the State on the other hand took similar stand as contended by the learned counsel appearing for Opposite Party Nos.3 and 4. It is contended that since Petitioner was proceeded Page 3 of 5 // 4 // with in a departmental proceeding, Addl. Director in the Office of Directorate Higher Education issued the direction to replace the Petitioner as Principal-in-Charge by allowing Opposite Party No.4 to continue. 7. Having heard learned counsel for the Parties and after going through the materials placed by the learned counsels, this Court finds that Petitioner was allowed to continue as Principal-In-Charge of the College vide order dtd.19.10.2011 so issued by Opposite Party No.2. While so continuing, Petitioner vide order dtd.22.09.2020 under Annexure-5 of Opposite Party No.3 was removed as Principal-In-Charge of the College and in his place Opposite Party No.4 was allowed to continue. As found from the record, such an order was passed by Opposite Party No.3 basing on the letter issued by the Addl. Directorate, Directorate of Higher Education on 26.08.2020. Since Petitioner was allowed to continue as Principal-In-Charge vide order dtd.19.10.2011 of Opposite Party No.2, Addl. Director in the Office of Directorate Higher Secondary Education is not competent to issue letter dtd.26.08.2020, without due approval of Opposite Party No.2. Since such a letter was issued by the Addl. Director without prior approval of the Director Higher Education and basing on the said letter, Petitioner was removed from the post of Principal-In-Charge vide order dtd.22.09.2020 of Opposite Party No.3 under Annexure-5, the said order as per the considered view of this Court is not sustainable in the eye of law. Not only as contended by the learned counsel appearing for the Page 4 of 5 // 5 // Opposite Parties Petitioner was so removed because of the initiation of a proceeding against him. Since this Court has already quashed the proceeding so initiated against the Petitioner vide Memorandum dtd.01.10.2020 in W.P.(C) No.31899 of 2020, the grounds pleaded by the Opposite Parties with regard to removal of the Petitioner is also not sustainable in the eye of law. 7.1. In any view of the matter, since without prior approval of the Opposite Party No.2 and without following the principle of natural justice Addl. Director issued the direction to Opposite Party No.3 to remove the Petitioner and basing on the same, the impugned order dtd.22.09.2020 was passed by the Opposite Party No.3 under Annexure-5, this Court is inclined to quash the said order. While quashing the same, this Court taking into account the interim order passed on 09.10.2020 directs Opposite Party No.3 to allow the Petitioner to continue as Principal-In-Charge of the College in terms of the order dtd.19.10.2011. 9. Accordingly, the Writ Petition stands disposed of. (Biraja Prasanna Satapathy) Judge Subrat Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: SUBRAT KUMAR BARIK Reason: Authentication Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACK Date: 08-Feb-2024 11:40:31 Page 5 of 5