The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK WP(C) No.30516 of 2023 ..... Atanu Dewri Petitioner Mr. M. Pratap @ P.K.Mahapatra, Advocate State of Odisha & Ors. ..... -versus- Opposite Parties Mr. S. Das, ASC THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY CORAM: ORDER 30.10.2025 Order No.13 1. This matter is taken up through hybrid mode.
Legal Reasoning
5.1. Basing on the order passed by this Court in W.P.(C) No. 26680 of 2022, Petitioner when filed an appeal against the order of dismissal, the appellate authority in course of disposal of the appeal, found that the Petitioner has misappropriated a sum of Rs.4,99,800/- during the period from March 2022 to September, 2022 and the amount so misappropriated was meant for payment of pension for the beneficiaries under MBPY Scheme. 5.2. Taking into account such misappropriation of the amount meant for the beneficiaries under MBPY Scheme, the appellate authority rejected the appeal vide order dtd.09.08.2023 under Annexure-12. It is contended that Petitioner since has misappropriated the fund provided towards payment of pension under MBPY Scheme during the period from March 2022 to September 2022 to the tune of Rs.4,99,800/-, the order of termination has been rightly passed under Annexure-7 so confirmed by the appellate authority vide order under Annexure-12. 5.3. It is also contended that for such misappropriation a criminal proceeding has already been set in motion with lodging of the F.I.R. Page 3 of 5. against the Petitioner. It is accordingly contended that since Petitioner has involved himself with misappropriation of Rs. 4,99,800/-, which was determined in course of hearing of the appeal, no illegality or irregularity can be found with the initial order of dismissal passed under Annexure-7, further confirmed vide order under Annexure-12. 6. Having heard learned counsel appearing for the Parties and considering the submissions made, this Court finds that Petitioner while continuing in Dabugaon Block in the district of Nabarangpur, on the ground that he has misappropriated a sum or Rs.93,000/- so meant for payment of pension to the beneficiaries under MBPY Scheme, he was terminated from his services vide order dtd.30.09.2022 under Annexure-7 of Opp. Party No. 3. Basing on the order passed by this Court in W.P.(C) No. 26680 of 2022, Petitioner filed an appeal before Opp. Party No. 2 and the appellate authority rejected the appeal vide order dtd.09.08.2023 under Annexure-12 by holding that Petitioner has in fact misappropriated a sum of Rs.4,99,800/- instead of Rs.93,000/-. 6.1. However, this Court after going through the materials available on record, more particularly the documents enclosed to the counter affidavit and the stand taken therein, finds that the amount of misappropriation be it Rs.93,000/- or 4,99,800/- has never been determined by following due procedure of law and by giving due opportunity of hearing to the Petitioner. 6.2. Since the amount in question, which is the reason for passing of the order of dismissal under Annexure-7 and the amount determined during the appeal basing on which the appeal was rejected, has not been determined in accordance with law by giving due opportunity Page 4 of 5. of hearing to the Petitioner, this Court on that ground only, is inclined to quash order dtd.30.09.2022 so passed by Opp. Party No. 3 under Annexure-7 and further order passed by Opp. Party No. 2 on 09.08.2023 under Annexure-12. 6.3. While quashing both the orders, this Court remits the matter to Opp. Party No.3 to take a fresh decision with regard to the misappropriation alleged against the Petitioner. This Court directs opp. Party No. 3 to issue a show-cause indicating therein the misappropriation made by the Petitioner with all the details. Petitioner be allowed six (6) weeks time to file his reply from the date of receipt of the show-cause. Opp. Party No. 3 is directed to take a fresh decision with regard to re-instatement of the Petitioner after due determination of the misappropriation and with passing of an appropriate order. 6.4. This Court directs Opp. Party No. 3 to issue the show-cause within a period of one (1) month hence. Petitioner be allowed six (6) weeks time to give his reply from the date of receipt of the show- cause. Opp. Party No. 3 is directed to take a lawful decision on the same within a period of eight (8) weeks from the date of submission of the reply. 6.5. Question of reinstatement of the Petitioner will depend on the order to be passed by Opp. Party No. 3 as directed. 7. With the aforesaid observation and direction, the writ petition
Arguments
2. Heard Mr. M. Pratap, learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner and Mr. S. Das, learned Addl. Standing Counsel appearing for the Opp. Parties. 3. The present writ petition has been filed inter alia challenging order dtd.30.09.2022 so issued by the Collector, Nabarangpur-Opp. Party No. 3 under Annexure-7, further confirmed by the appellate authority vide his order dtd.09.08.2023 under Annexure-12. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner contended that while continuing as a Junior Clerk, (re-designated as Junior Assistant (SSEPD)) on contractual basis under SS & EPD Department vide office order dtd.08.11.2018, Petitioner without being provided with any opportunity of hearing and without issuance of any show-cause, was terminated from his services vide order dtd.30.09.2022 under Annexure-7, on the ground that Petitioner has misappropriated an amount of Rs.93,000/-, meant for payment of pension to the Page 1 of 5. beneficiaries under MBPY Scheme in the month of September, 2022. 4.1. Learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner contended that challenging such order of dismissal so passed on 30.09.2022, Petitioner approached this Court by filing W.P.(C) No. 26680 of 2022. This Court vide order dtd.18.10.2022 permitted the Petitioner to move the appellate authority challenging such order of dismissal. Accordingly, Petitioner moved the appellate authority-Opp. Party No. 2 under Annexure-9. But the appellate authority by holding the Petitioner liable to the extent of misappropriation of Rs.4,99,800/-, held the order of dismissal to have been rightly passed and accordingly rejected the appeal vide order dtd.09.08.2023 under Annexure-12. 4.2. Learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner contended that the allegation of misappropriation basing on which Petitioner was initially terminated from his services vide order dtd.18.10.2022 under Annexure-7 and rejection of the appeal on the ground indicated in the impugned order dtd.09.08.2023 under Annexure-12, are not sustainable in the eye of law, as at no point of time the alleged misappropriation was proved against the Petitioner by following due procedure of law. 4.3. Since at no point of time the misappropriation basing on which the Petitioner was never terminated was determined by following due procedure of law and by giving due opportunity of hearing to the Petitioner, the order of termination passed against the Petitioner under Annexure-9, so confirmed vide order under Annexure-12 are not sustainable in the eye of law and requires interference of this Court. Page 2 of 5. 5. Basing on the stand taken in the counter affidavit, learned Addl. Standing Counsel contended that Petitioner while continuing as a Junior Clerk (re-designated as Junior Assistant (SSEPD)) in the office of B.D.O., Dabugaon Block, in the district of Nabarangpur, he was in-charge for payment of pension meant for the beneficiaries under MBPY scheme. Since it was found on verification that Petitioner has misappropriated a sum of Rs.93,000/- in the month of September, 2022, on the ground of misappropriation of the amount, Petitioner was terminated from his services vide order dtd.30.09.2022 under Annexure-7 of Opp. Party No. 3.
Decision
stands disposed of. Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: SNEHANJALI PARIDA Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Date: 07-Nov-2025 18:42:03 (BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY) Judge Sneha Page 5 of 5.