The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C ) NO.2343 of 2016 Ramakanta Mohanta …. Petitioner Mr. G.R. Sethi, Adv. -versus- A. Director Secondary Educatioin, Odisha & Others … Opp. Parties State Counsel CORAM: JUSTICE BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY Order No ORDER 08.04.2024 9. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual/Physical) Mode. 2. Pursuant to the order passed by this Court on 11.03.2024, Mr. Bimbisar Dash, learned Sr. Panel counsel appearing for Opp. Party No.3 files an affidavit in Court with service of copy on the learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner. The same be kept on record.
Legal Reasoning
3. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 4. Petitioner has filed the present Writ Petition inter alia challenging the order of punishment passed against him initially by the Disciplinary Authority-Opp. Party No.2 vide order dt.17.07.2014 under Annexure-6 so confirmed by the appellate authority–Opp.Party No.1 vide order dt.02.01.2016 under Annexure-8. 4.1. It is contended that Petitioner while continuing as a Hindi Teacher in Patasanipur New Government High School, a proceeding was initiated against him under Rule-15 of the OCS(CC & A) Rule, 1962 (In short, “The Rules”) vide memorandum dt.02.12.2009 under Annexure-1. The proceeding was so initiated inter alia with the charge that Petitioner without having required permission from the competent authority, after his appointment as a Hindi Teacher acquired the following qualification: 1. B.Ed. in Hindi………………1994 2. M.A in Hindi…………………1998 3. Diploma in Hindi……………1999 4. Ph.D……………………………2008 A further charge was also made that Petitioner without obtaining prior permission prosecuted LL.B. Degree during the Session 1998-2001 in Mayurbhanj College, Baripada. 4.2. It is contended that Petitioner on receipt of the memorandum, submitted his written statement of defence vide Annexure-2 and also participated in the enquiry. The Inquiry Officer vide letter dt.25.02.2011 under Annexure-3 submitted the report by holding the Petitioner guilty of the charges regarding his acquisition of qualification B.Ed. in Hindi, M.A in Hindi, Diploma in Hindi and P.H.D in different years as well as LL.B qualification without taking prior permission from the competent authority. 4.3. It is contended that after following the provisions contained under Rule-15 of the Rules, Petitioner when was imposed with the order of punishment by the Disciplinary Authority-Opp. Party No.2 vide order dt.17.07.2014 under Annexure-6 by imposing punishment of stoppage of two increments with cumulative effect, Petitioner filed an appeal before the appellate authority-Opp. party No.1 under Annexure-7. 4.4.
Legal Reasoning
It is contended that Petitioner though took a stand that Petitioner acquired all those qualifications after his appointment through correspondence course and attended the Page 2 of 6 LL.B course in the morning session and thereby causing no disruption to his work as a Hindi Teacher in the School in question, but without proper appreciation, the appellate authority while rejecting the same, confirmed the order of punishment vide order dt.02.01.2016 under Annexure-8. 4.5. Learned counsel for the Petitioner contended that since Petitioner acquired all the qualifications after his appointment as a Hindi Teacher through correspondence courses and the LL.B. Degree by attending the class in the morning session., no permission was required to be obtained by him. Even though such a stand was taken all through, but the Disciplianry Authority and the Appellate Authority without proper appreciation of the same, imposed the order of punishment under Annexure-6, so confirmed vide order under Annexure-8. It is accordingly contended that the order of punishment so imposed under Annexure-6 and confirmed vide order under Annexure-8 are not sustainable in the eye of law. 5. Learned Addl. Govt. Advocate on the other hand while did not dispute the stand taken by the Petitioner regarding acquisition of the qualification B.Ed in Hindi, M.A in Hindi, Diploma in Hindi and P.H.D through correspondence course, but contended that since the petitioner prosecuted LL.B Degree during the session 1998-2001 from Mayurbhanj Law College, Baripada coming under North Orissa Universities, without permission, petitioner has been rightly punished. 5.1. Considering such stand taken in the counter affidavit, this Court passed the following order on 01.09.2023 and further order on 21.09.2023 . 01.09.2023 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual/Physical) Mode. 2. Counter affidavit filed in Court be kept in record. Copy of the same is also served on learned counsel for the Petitioner in Court today. Page 3 of 6 3. Learned counsel for the Petitioner is directed to produce the relevant documents with regard to the contention raised that the Petitioner has acquired the qualification of M.A. in Hindi, Diploma in Hindi, Ph.D through corresponding course as well as LL.B being a student in the morning session of Mayurbhanj Law College. 4. Learned counsel for the Petitioner is directed to produce all the certificates in support of the aforesaid contentions on the next date. 5. As requested by Mr. Sethi, learned counsel for the Petitioner, list this matter on 21st of September, 2023. is taken up through Hybrid 21.09.2023 “1. This matter Arrangement (Virtual/Physical) Mode. 2. Pursuant to the order passed by this Court on 01.09.2023, learned counsel for the Petitioner filed the required certificates by way of a memo. The same be kept in record. Copy of the same is also served on learned State Counsel in Court today 3. Considering the stand taken by the Petitioner that he prosecuted his LLB degree from Mayurbhanj Law College by attending the class in morning session, this to obtain necessary Court directs documents in that regard from the College and file the same before this Court on the next date. 4. As requested, list this matter on 05.10.2023.” the Petitioner This Court vide order dt.22.02.2024 also permitted the Petitioner to implead Union of India, Ministry of Education as Opp. Party No.3 in order to verify as to whether the qualification obtained by him i.e. Diploma in Hindi is through correspondence course or not. 6. Basing on the order passed by this Court on 21.09.2023, learned counsel for the Petitioner produced relevant documents issued by the College i.e. Mayurbhanj Law College inter alia showing that Petitioner prosecuted the LL.B course in the morning session which commence from 7.00 A.M to 10.00 A.M. Basing on the instruction, Mr. Sethy, learned counsel for the Petitioner contended that since Petitioner attended the morning session which ends at 10 A.M, there was no difficulty on his part to attend the class in the school in question at 10.30 A.M. 7. After appearance of Opp. Party No. 3, this Court when directed learned Senior Panel counsel to obtain instruction as Page 4 of 6 to whether the qualification acquired by the Petitioner, i.e Diploma in Hindi is through correspondence course or not, an affidavit is filed in Court by the Sr. Panel Counsel. Basing on affidavit filed by Opp. Party No.3, learned Senior Panel Counsel appearing for Opp. Party no.3, fairly contended that the said course is through correspondence mode. 8. Mr. Sethi, learned counsel for the Petitioner placing reliance on the certificate issued by the Mayurbhanj Law College and the affidavit filed by Opp. Party No.3 contended that since Petitioner has obtained all those qualification through correspondence course save and except, LL.B. by attending the morning session, he has not violated any terms of condition of his employment and no such permission is required to be obtained to prosecute the courses in question. It is accordingly contended that the impugned order of punishment passed against the Petitioner under Annexure-6 so confirmed by the appellate authority under Annexure-8 are not sustainable in the eye of law and requires interference of this Court. 8. To the stand taken by the learned counsel for the Petitioner regarding attending the morning session to prosecute LL.B. Course, learned A.G.A contended that if the morning sessions ends at 10 A.M, it is not practical on his part to attend the School at 10.30 A.M. It is accordingly contended that even though Petitioner prosecuted LL.B. course in the morning session, he should have obtained prior permission to prosecute the same. 9. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and considering the materials available on record, this Court finds that Petitioner after his appointment as a Hindi Teacher prosecuted B.Ed in Hindi in 1994, M.A. in Hindi in the year 1998, Diploma in Hindi in the year 1999 and P.H.D in 2008 and prosecuted LL.B during the Session 1998-2001. Since Page 5 of 6 the Petitioner has acquired the qualification B.Ed. in Hindi, M.A in Hindi and Diploma in Hind and P.H.D through correspondence course, no permission is required to be obtained to prosecute the said courses. Similarly, since the Petitioner prosecuted the LL.B in the morning session which ends at 10 A.M, it is also the view of this Court that no permission was required to be obtained by the Petitioner to prosecute the said course in the morning session. Since with regard to acquisition of all those qualifications, Petitioner has never caused any disruption to his work as Hindi teacher in the school in question, the ground on which the proceeding was initiated under Annexure-1 with imposition of punishment vide order dt.17.07.2014 under Annexure-6 so confirmed by the appellate authority vide order dt.02.01.2016 under Annexure- 8, as per the considered view of this Court are not sustainable in the eye of law. Therefore, this Court is inclined to quash the order dt.17.07.2014 so passed by Opp. Party No.2 under Annexure- 6 and order dt.02.08.2016 so passed by the appellate authority-Opp. party No.1 under Annexure-8. While quashing both the order, the Writ Petition is allowed to the aforesaid extent.
Decision
The Writ Petition is accordingly disposed of. (Biraja Prasanna Satapathy) Judge sangita Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: SANGITA PATRA Reason: AUTHENTICATION OF ORDER Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACK Date: 12-Apr-2024 20:06:34 Page 6 of 6