The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C) No.26854 of 2024 Ritarani Muduli …. Petitioner Mr.S.K.Dalai, Advocate State of Odisha and others …. Opposite Parties -versus- THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY Mr.A.Tripathy, AGA Mr.N.K.Sahu, Advocate CORAM: Order No. ORDER 14.05.2025 06. I.A. No. of 2025 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual/Physical) Mode. 2. 3. 4. The I.A. filed in Court today be registered. Heard. Considering the grounds taken in the I.A., the prayer for
Decision
amendment is allowed. Consolidated copy of the writ petition along with all Annexures filed in Court be placed in appropriate place. 5. The I.A. is disposed of. (BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY) JUDGE W.P. (C) No.26854 of 2024 1. Heard Mr.S.K.Dalai, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.A.Tripathy, learned Addl. Government Advocate along with Mr.N.K.Sahu, learned counsel for the intervenor/petitioner. 2. The writ petition has been filed with the following prayer : Page 1 of 6 “It is therefore, humbly prayed that this Hon'ble Court may kindly be graciously pleased to admit the writ petition, issue RULE NISI calling upon the opposite parties to show cause as to why; i) the order dtd. 01.06.2023 under Annexure-5 shall not be quashed declaring as illegal, arbitrary, malafide, without authority, unreasonable and contrary to law. ii) Appropriate direction shall not be given to refund Rs.96,984/- with accrued interest to the petitioner forthwith to secure ends of justice; iii) The consequential action of the opposite parties shall not be declared as illegal, arbitrary, malafide and contrary to the statutory provisions and Operation guidelines made by the Govt. of India to secure ends of justice, (iv)The order of disengagement dated 01.10.2024 under Annexure-11 Series shall not be quashed declaring the same as illegal, arbitrary, malafide and contrary to the Article 14 and 20 (2) of the Constitution of India. And/or pass any other order/orders, direction/directions as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case; And for this act of kindness the petitioner as in duty bound shall ever pray.” 3. It is contended that while petitioner was continuing as a Gram Rojgar Sevak (GRS), he was issued with a show cause by opposite party No.5 on 26.05.2023 vide Annexure-4 with the following allegations: “As per Social audit report dated 18/05/2023 and Gram Sabha resolution of Gopinathpur GP dated 18/05/2023, it was found that you have engaged 10 no of Underage workers in 13 no of MGNREGS Projects in Gopinathpur GP, Which is clearly violates MGNREGS guidelines and government labour laws. Therefore you are instructed submit explanation within 3 days as to why disciplinary action should not be taken against you.” 3.1. It is further contended that even though petitioner gave his reply to the show cause, but vide order dated 01.06.2023 under Annexure-5, petitioner along with two others were directed to deposit a sum of Page 2 of 6 Rs.96,984/- (Rupees ninety six thousand nine hundred eighty four only) within three days. It is contended that even though petitioner in terms of order dated 01.06.2023 could not make the deposit within the time stipulated, but he deposited the entire amount vide Annexure-6 series on 09.08.2023 and 23.08.2023. 3.2. It is contended that petitioner deposited the entire amount even though he was not liable to repay the same as the show cause was issued, basing on social audit report. It is contended that basing on audit report, no liability can be fixed on an employee, unless the same is determined in accordance with law and by giving due opportunity of hearing. However, in order to save his job, petitioner deposited the entire amount vide Annexure-6 series. But, on the face of such deposit and without issuing any further show cause whatsoever, petitioner was illegally dis-engaged from his service vide order dated 01.10.2024 under Annexure-11 series of opposite party No.3 by holding the petitioner responsible for misappropriation of government fund amounting to Rs.83,944/-. 3.3. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended that though a show cause was issued under Annexure-4, but no amount was indicated therein and petitioner was only directed to file his reply as to why 10 nos of underage worker in 13 nos of MGNREGS Projects in Gopinathpur G.P. were engaged to do the work. However, in the impugned communication dated 01.06.2023, petitioner along with two others were instructed to deposit a sum of Rs.96,984/-, which the petitioner complied in full, in order to save his job. But after such deposit of the amount, without issuing any further show cause, petitioner was retrenched from his services vide order dated 01.10.2024 of opposite party No.3 under Annexure-11 series. Page 3 of 6 3.4. It is contended that prior to such dis-engagement of the petitioner, principle of natural justice since was never followed with issue of a show cause, order of disengagement is a nullity in the eye of law. It is also contended that there is no allegation that the petitioner misappropriated the amount, as the allegation is with regard to engagement of 10 nos of underage worker for execution of 13 nos of MGNREGS Projects. It is accordingly contended that impugned order of disengagement passed by opposite party No.3 vide office order dated 01.10.2024 under Annexure-11 series is not sustainable in the eye of law and requires interference of this Court. 4. Even though notice of the writ petition has been issued since 18.11.2024 with passing of an interim order, but no counter affidavit has been filed by the State as yet. 4.1. Learned Addl. Government Advocate however contended that petitioner along with 2 (two) others were instructed to deposit a sum of Rs.96,984/- vide order dated 1.6.2023, with issuance of the show cause on 26.5.2023 under Annexure-4. Opposite party No.5 taking into account of the reply submitted by the petitioner, held the petitioner - GRS and the PEO and Sarpanch of the Gram Panchayat liable to pay the amount. Since petitioner deposited the entire liability vide Annexure-6 series, it amounts to confession of the misappropriation. 4.2. It is contended that taking into account such confession, opposite party No.3 terminated the petitioner from his services vide order dated 01.10.2023 under Annexure-11 series. It is accordingly contended that no illegality or irregularity can be found with the action of opposite partyNos.3 and 5. 5. Mr.N.K.Sahu, learned counsel appearing for the intervenor/petitioner on the other hand contended that since basing on Page 4 of 6 allegation made by the intervenor/petitioner such action has been taken against the petitioner, it requires no interference of this Court. 6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and considering the submissions made, this Court finds that the petitioner while continuing as GRS in the Panchayat in question, show cause was issued by opposite party No.5 on 26.05.2023 vide Annexure-4 with the allegation as indicated hereinabove. Even though petitioner submitted his reply but within four days of the show cause, petitioner was held liable to pay a sum of Rs.96,984/- along with two others. 6.1. Since basing on audit report such a liability was fixed on the petitioner, it is the view of the Court that prior to determination of the amount, no liability could have been fixed on the petitioner. Even after deposit of the amount by the petitioner under Annexure-6 series, petitioner was disengaged from his services vide order dated 01.10.2024 of opposite party No.3. Since prior to such disengagement of petitioner, principle of natural justice was never followed nor any show cause was issued, this Court is of the view that such an order should not have been passed by opposite party No.3. 6.2. In view of the aforesaid analysis, this Court directs the opp. Party No.1 to take a fresh decision with regard to the liability fixed on the petitioner vide order dated 1.6.2023 under Annexure-5 and so also the order of disengagement issued by opposite party No.3 on 1.10.2024 under Annexure-11 series. Opposite party No.1 is directed to take a decision by giving due opportunity of hearing to the petitioner as well as the intervenor-petitioner within a period of two months from the date of receipt of this order. Petitioner is permitted to provide a copy of this order before opposite party No.1 for compliance. In order to avoid delay and the fact that petitioner is continuing without employment since 01.10.2024, Page 5 of 6 this Court permits the petitioner to appear before opposite party No.1 on 30.05.2025. 7. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of with the aforesaid observation and direction. Till a decision is taken by opposite party No.1 as directed, interim order passed earlier shall continue. JUDGE (BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY) Bichi Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BICHITRANANDA SAHOO Designation: Secretary Reason: Authentication Location: Orissa High Court Date: 23-May-2025 11:37:05 Page 6 of 6