The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C) No.24777 of 2023 Kshyiramani Rana …. Petitioner Mr. Trilochan Nanda, Advocate State of Odisha & others -versus- ….
Legal Reasoning
Opposite Parties Mr. I. Mohanty, A.S.C. CORAM: JUSTICE A.K. MOHAPATRA
Decision
ORDER 08.08.2023 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual /Physical Mode). 2. On the oral prayer of learned counsel for the Petitioner is permitted to carry out the correction the narration portion of the cause title. 3. Heard learned counsel for the Petitioner as well as the learned Additional Standing Counsel for the State. Perused the Writ Petition as well as the documents annexed thereto. 4. The present Writ Petition has been filed with the following prayer : Order No. 01. “It is therefore prayed that this Hon’ble Court may graciously be pleased to consider the facts stated in the writ petition, admit the same, issue Rule NISI calling upon the Opp. Parties to show cause:- i) Why the Office Order dtd.25.07.2023 passed by the O.P. No.5-Block Development Officer, Gudvella under Annexure-1 shall not be quashed; ii) Why the petitioner shall not be allowed to continue as Geo-Tagging Youth of Gudvella G.P. under Gudvella Block in the district of Bolangir with all consequential service and financial benefits; If the Opp. Parties fail to show cause or show insufficient cause then the rule may kindly be made absolute. // 2 // And/or pass any other order/orders, direction/ directions, writ/writs as this Hon’ble Court may deem just and proper.” It is submitted by learned counsel for the Petitioner that the 5. present Petitioner was selected by following a due selection procedure and the Petitioner stood at serial No.2 of the final select list. He was then directed to join in the office as Geo-Tagging Youth of Gudvella G.P. pursuant to the order of the Block Development Officer, Gudvella vide office order No.551 dated 04.05.2018 after disengaging a person namely Surya Suna. Learned counsel for the Petitioner further contended that since the date of his engagement vide order dated 04.05.2018 under Annexure-5, the Petitioner was performing his duties to the satisfaction of the authorities. Learned counsel for the Petitioner further drawing attention of this Court to office order dated 11.07.2019 under Annexure-7 submitted before this Court that because of the satisfactory performance of the Petitioner, the Petitioner was engaged as Data Entry Operator by the Block Development Officer, Gudvella. 6. While the matter stood thus, vide impugned letter dated 25.07.2023 of the Block Development Officer, Gudvella, the Petitioner has been disengaged from service. Challenging order dated 25.07.2023 under Annexure-1 the Petitioner has approached this Court by filing the present writ application. 7. Learned Additional Standing Counsel on the other hand submitted that the appointment of the Petitioner under Annexure-5 was subject to the terms and conditions as has been prescribed by the Government vide letter dated 05.07.2017 under Annexure-2. The said circular of the Government reveals that in the event, the performances of the persons are found to be unsatisfactory, then the concerned Block Development Officers may replace such youth from the job. In such view of the matter, learned Additional Standing Counsel submitted that since the Block Development Officer, Gudvella found that the // 3 // Petitioner’s performance is not satisfactory, the Petitioner has been discharged from service. Accordingly, it was submitted that the Block Development Officer, Gudvella has not committed any illegality in disengaging the Petitioner from the job he was performing. 8. Learned counsel for the Petitioner further referring to a judgment of this Court in Nilamani Jal vs. Collector, Balangir reported in 2016 (II) OLR 190 submitted before this Court that a Coordinate Bench of this Court has held that while disengaging a person from the post of Multipurpose Assistant (GRS) for negligence in Government duty, the authorities are duty bound to issue show-cause notice and to provide an opportunity to show-cause and to consider the same while passing the final order. The Coordinate Bench has also held in the said judgment that the administrative authority is supposed to pass a reasoned order, unless the order is supported by a reason the same is nullity in the eye of law and as such the same is to be treated to have been passed in violation of the principles of natural justice. 9. On a perusal of the impugned order, this Court found that the Petitioner has been disengaged by the Block Development Officer, Gudvella on the ground that the Petitioner has failed to discharge his duties to his utmost satisfaction. No other reason whatsoever has been given. Further it does not also speak of how the Petitioner has failed to discharge his duties to the satisfaction of the authorities. Any adverse observations in the order will have to be construed as stigmatic in nature. Therefore, the Opposite Parties should have provided an opportunity to show-cause to the Petitioner before passing the impugned order while discharging the Petitioner from his duties. Otherwise, this Court is of the view that such cryptic order would lead to arbitrary exercise of power by the administrative authority. 10. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the Parties and on a careful consideration of their submissions as well as the materials // 4 // placed on record, this Court deems it proper to dispose of the writ application at the stage of admission by setting aside the order dated 25.07.2023 under Annexure-1. Further, the matter is remanded back to the Block Development Officer, Gudvella to consider the matter afresh after providing an opportunity to show-cause to the Petitioner and thereafter, necessary final order be passed in accordance with law within a period of four weeks from the date the Petitioner approaches the Opposite Party No.5. Accordingly, the petitioner is directed to approach the Opposite Party No.5- Block Development Officer, Gudvella along with a certified copy of this order within 10 days from today and in the event, the Petitioner approaches the Opposite Party No.5, the Opposite Party No.5- Block Development Officer, Gudvella shall do well to provide an opportunity to show-cause to the Petitioner and thereafter necessary final order be passed with regard to service of the Petitioner. Needless to say, any final decision taken in the matter by the Opposite Party No.5 be communicated to the Petitioner within a week thereafter. 11. With the aforesaid observations/ directions, the writ application stands disposed of. Issue urgent certified copy of this order as per Rules. Anil ( A.K. Mohapatra ) Judge Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: ANIL KUMAR SAHOO Designation: Junior Stenographer Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa Date: 10-Aug-2023 18:15:55