Application under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India. Jayasmita Kabat … v. State of Odisha & Others
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C) No. 27901 of 2024 Application under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India. Jayasmita Kabat …… Petitioner --------------- - Versus - State of Odisha & Others ...…. Opp. Parties Advocate(s) appeared in this case:- ________________________________________________________ For Petitioner : Mr. P.C. Acharya, Advocate. For Opp. Parties
Legal Reasoning
other materials on record. There is no dispute that two weighing scales were found to be present in the godown. It is not the case of the authorities that the weighing scale utilized by the petitioner was her own but it is borne out from the materials on the record that the same was supplied by the Gram Panchayat and was being utilized till the Government weighing scale was supplied. It is also borne out from the record that the Government weighing scale was supplied on 05.10.2024. Page 5 of 8 Nothing has been placed before this Court to suggest that there was any foul play or any erroneous measurement of rice utilizing the old machine prior to 05.10.2024. Moreover, in the counter affidavit it is stated under paragraph-19 that there is no specific allegation regarding misappropriation of the PDS rice. For reference the same is reproduced below: irregularities “That, in reply to the averments made by the petitioner in Para-12 of the writ petition, it is humbly submitted that the Jogan Sahayak, Nadpur done gross for disobedience of Govt. guidelines in distribution of PDS food grains through Govt. supplied weighing scale integrated with the POS device and not distributing Ragi to the beneficiaries which should be distributed by the end of September, 2024 letter No.647 dated 26.06.2024. Even if there is no specific allegation with respect to misappropriation of the PDS but the admission of the petitioner utilizing the old defective machine is sufficient to draw a conclusion about violation of Government guideline and as such there is no illegality in disengaging her. Further as described in the previous paragraphs the action of disengagement of the petitioner has been taken only after considering her defence and conducting enquiry in her presence. As such the allegation of disengaging the petitioner without giving any reasonable opportunity of being heard by the petitioner is completely incorrect and accordingly denied by the deponent.” (Emphasis added) 9. Perusal of the explanation submitted by the petitioner reveals that she had specifically stated that the measurement was being done in presence of general public and because of the Government instructions to distribute three months’ ration, Page 6 of 8 there was heavy load. Since no load was put on the weighing scale it reflected some incorrect measurement. The decision taken by the selection committee to disengage the petitioner was without considering the above aspect. Since the petitioner submitted a plausible explanation, the same ought to have been considered. In any case, regard being had to the specific admission by the State in its counter that there is no evidence of any kind of misappropriation of rice by the petitioner, this Court is of the considered view that the extreme step of disengagement of the petitioner as Jogan Sahayak is not warranted or justified, the same being unduly harsh and disproportionate. When it is a question of livelihood of a person, a right guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India, it is imperative that the concerned authorities should act with utmost sensitivity and fairness. In the instant case, from the facts narrated before, it is discernible that the authorities concerned have acted somewhat mechanically and despite no evidence of any serious misconduct, decided to take the harsh step of disengagement of the petitioner. 10. From a conspectus of the discussion made hereinbefore, Page 7 of 8 this Court is left with no doubt that the order of disengagement cannot be sustained in the eye of law, being unduly harsh and disproportionate. 11. For the foregoing reasons therefore, the writ petition is allowed. The impugned order of disengagement issued against the petitioner is hereby set aside. The Opposite Party authorities are directed to reinstate the petitioner as Jogan Sahayak forthwith. It is made clear that the petitioner shall not be entitled to any financial benefit for the period of her disengagement but the said period shall notionally count towards continuity in employment. Necessary orders in this regard shall be passed within four weeks from the date of production of certified copy of this order by the petitioner. ..…..……………………. Sashikanta Mishra, Judge Orissa High Court, Cuttack. The 21st of March, 2025/ P. Ghadai, Jr. Steno. Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: PUSPANJALI GHADAI Designation: Junior Stenographer Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack. Date: 26-Mar-2025 17:49:59 Page 8 of 8
Arguments
: Mr. S.S. Routray, Addl. Standing Counsel _________________________________________________________ CORAM: JUSTICE SASHIKANTA MISHRA JUDGMENT 21.03.2025 SASHIKANTA MISHRA, J. The petitioner has approached this Court with the following prayer: “The petitioner therefore, prays that your Lordships would be pleased to admit the case, call for the records from the opposite parties and after hearing the parties allow the same with Page 1 of 8 cost and issue a writ/writs in the nature of Mandamus/Certiorari, or any other or further writs/ directions quashing Annexure-3 Series as illegal and further pass an order to take back the petitioner from 05.11.2024 to the post Jogan Sahayak with her salary or may pass any other order as this Hon’ble Court deem fit and proper ; And for which act of kindness, the petitioners shall as in duty bound ever pray.” 2. The facts of the case are that the petitioner was appointed as Jogan Sahayak by order dated 01.07.2020 of the Collector, Mayurbhanj and was assigned to Nadpur, Gram Panchayat. While working as such, on 02.11.2024 the ABDO, Betnoti visited the spot to enquire about the alleged misappropriation of PDS rice as complained by the public. Because of public agitation however, he could not complete the enquiry and therefore, returned after sealing the PDS godown along with rice bags and two different weighing scales kept therein. On 05.11.2024, a team headed by the BDO, Betnoti, GPDO, WEO, MI, ABDO and ACLM, Baripada went to the spot and conducted inquiry after opening the seal of the godown. They found two weighing scales inside the godown. The correctness of the weighing scales was checked and it was found that the Government supplied weighing scale (Phoneix) Page 2 of 8 showed correct weighment but the other scale (Sansui) showed 220 grams extra. Further, there was no seal attached to the said weighing scale. 3. The petitioner was called upon to explain pursuant to which, she submitted her explanation in writing but the inquiry team concluded that the petitioner has violated the Government guidelines by not weighing the rice quantity in the Government supplied weighing scale, which is integrated and linked with PSO device. On the basis of such findings, the BDO, Betnoti vide order dated 05.11.2024 along with the Marketing Inspector and Sarpanch being the selection committee, unanimously decided to disengage the petitioner as Jogan Sahayak and to go for fresh advertisement. Consequent upon such order, the formal order of disengagement was issued by the Sarpanch on 05.11.2024. Being aggrieved, the petitioner has approached this Court in the present writ application with the prayer as quoted above. 4. Counter affidavit has been filed by the BDO, inter alia, stating that the petitioner was earlier supplied with Sansui weighing scale by the Gram Panchayat, which was utilized for Page 3 of 8 operating the distribution programme of food grains. Subsequently, as per Government instructions, electronic digital platform weighing scale with e-Pos device was made mandatory for weighment of the food grains. Accordingly, one such weighing scale was supplied to the Nadpur Gram Panchayat. There being a complaint raised by the villagers with regard to alleged shortfall in weighment of PDS rice the enquiry was conducted, wherein, it was found that the petitioner was weighing the PDS rice using the old machine and not the Government supplied machine. As such, she was rightly disengaged as she could not satisfactorily explain such fact. 5. Heard Mr. P.C. Acharya, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. S.S. Routray, learned Additional Standing Counsel for the State. 6. Mr. Acharya would submit that due to the two weighing scales available in the Gram Panchayat, the petitioner was using both in order to meet the heavy demand associated with the distribution of rice. In any case, the difference between the two weighing scales was only 220 grams. He further submits that even according to the authorities there is no evidence of Page 4 of 8 any quantity of rice being misappropriated by the petitioner and therefore, taking the extreme step of disengaging her from her post is not only illegal but also unjust. 7. Mr. S.S. Routray, learned State counsel would submit that it was clearly proved that the petitioner was utilizing the weighing scale supplied by the Gram Panchayat which, on examination by the Assistant Controller Legal Metrology was found to be given wrong weight to the extent of 220 grams. This, according to Mr. Routray proves that excess rice beyond the permissible limit was being distributed. 8. I have considered the rival submissions and also perused the enquiry report, explanation submitted by the petitioner and