The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C) (OAC) No.4358 of 2015 Manguli Charan Pradhan …. Petitioner Mr. B.B. Mohanty, Advocate State of Odisha and Others -versus- …. Opposite Parties Mr. S. K. Samal, AGA CORAM: JUSTICE BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY Order No. 03. 1. This matter
Decision
ORDER 06.12.2023 taken up is through Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual/Physical) Mode. 2. At the outset, on the request made by Mr. Mohanty he is permitted to implead the Secretary Department of ST & SC Development, Government of Odisha as Opposite Party No.7 in Court today. 3. Heard learned counsel appearing for the Parties. 4. The Present Writ Petition has been filed inter alia with the following prayer:- “i) The Original Application be allowed. ii) This Hon’ble Tribunal may graciously be pleased to quash the letter dated 19.09.2015 and 19.10.2015 of Commandant, OSAP, 4th Bn, Rourkela. iii) Necessary direction may be issued to the Respondents to allow the applicant with all consequential service benefits without any recovery on account of training cost. iv) Or pass any other order/orders as this Hon’ble Tribunal may deem fit and proper”. // 2 // 5. Learned counsel for the Petitioner contended that the Petitioner after facing due recruitment process so conducted by the Odisha Staff Selection Commission, he was appointed as Deputy Subedar vide order dtd.08.09.2012, so issued by I.G. of Police Personnel under Annexure-1. 5.1. It is contended that in terms of the said order, Petitioner was required to undergo the training at Biju Pattnaik State Police Academy, Bhubaneswar, Petitioner though joined to pursue the training in question, but he left the training w.e.f. 14.12.2012. 5.2. Learned counsel for the Petitioner contended that since the Petitioner with due permission was allowed to leave the training in question, he is not liable to pay the amount as raised in the impugned communication dtd.19.09.2015 under Annexure-4 and subsequent letter dtd.19.10.2015 under Annexure-7-Series. 5.3. Learned counsel for the Petitioner contended that since the Petitioner did not pursue the training and left the same after 84 days of his joining, he is not liable to pay the amount as raised in the impugned communication under Annexure-4 and 7. 5.4. It is also contended that the impugned notice under Annexure-4 was issued taking recourse to the provision contained under Rule-665 of the Police Manual. But in fact Rule-665 is not applicable to the case of the Page 2 of 5 // 3 // Petitioner as he joined as a Deputy Subedar and it is applicable only to the case of Constables. 5.5. Making all the submissions, learned counsel for the Petitioner contended that the Petitioner is not liable to pay the demand as raised in the impugned communication under Annexures-4 and 7. 6. Mr. S.K. Samal, learned Addl. Government Advocate for the State on the other hand contended that basing on the order of appointment issued in favour of the Petitioner under Annexure-1, he executed a bond on 21.09.2012 vide Annexure-A to the counter, wherein the Petitioner agreed to refund a sum of Rs.1,30,000/- in case he fails to fulfill any of the condition so provided in the bond. 6.1. It is contended that since the Petitioner after joining the training left the same after 84 days Petitioner has failed to fulfill the condition to undergo the training for the required period. Petitioner accordingly is liable to pay the bond amount of Rs.1,30,000/-. 6.2. Learned Addl. Government Advocate further contended that Petitioner prior to his joining as Deputy Subedar in terms of the order issued under Annexure-1, was working in the establishment of CISF. As Petitioner had also left the training therein, basing on the letter issued by the authority of the CISF, along with Rs.1,30,000/-, which is the bond amount, further amount of Rs.74,847/- was also included for being refunded by the Petitioner. In support of such stand, Page 3 of 5 // 4 // learned Addl. Government Advocate relied on the communication issued under Annexure-I to the counter. 7. To the submissions made by Mr.Samal, learned counsel for the Petitioner contended that if the Petitioner has any amount to refund on the request made vide Annexure-I, the present Opposite Party No.5 is not competent to realize the said amount. The authorities of CISF can realize the amount as raised by following due process of law. 8. Having heard learned counsel for the Parties and after going through the materials available on record, this Court finds that Petitioner vide order dtd.08.09.2012 under Annexure-1 was appointed as Deputy Subedar of Police. In terms of the said order, Petitioner also executed the bond vide Annexure-A to the counter affidavit. Since the Petitioner in terms of the order of appointment did not complete the training, as per the considered view of this Court, the Petitioner failed to fulfill the condition of such appointment even though the Petitioner left the training after 84 days. 8.1. It is also the view of this Court that if the Petitioner is liable to refund any amount to the authority of CISF, Opposite Party No.5 is not competent to recover the said amount along with the bond amount of Rs.1,30,00/-. Since on the face of the record, it is found that the Petitioner has violated the terms of appointment by not completing the required training and left the training after 84 days, he is liable to pay Rs.1,30,000/-, in terms of the Page 4 of 5 // 5 // bond executed by him under Annexure-A. This Court accordingly while interfering with the impugned communication under Annexures-4 & 7 held the Petitioner liable to pay a sum of Rs.1,30,000/-. 8.2. It is open for the Opposite Party No.5 to recover the aforesaid amount of Rs.1,30,000/- from the monthly salary of the Petitioner as it is contended that the Petitioner at present is continuing in the establishment of District Welfare Officer, Kandhamal present Opposite Party No.4. This Court directs Opposite Party No.5 to recover the aforesaid amount of Rs.1,30,000/- in 13 equal monthly installments from the salary of the Petitioner by making necessary arrangement with Opposite Party No.7. 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: 13-Dec-2023 12:24:26 Page 5 of 5