The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C) No.33135 of 2022 (In the matter of an application Under Article 226 of the Constitution of India) Prabhasini Bhoi State of Odisha & others -versus- …. …. Petitioner Opposite Parties For Petitioner : Mr. S.Sourav, Advocate For Opposite Parties : Mr. S.K.Rout, ASC Mr.A.Tripathy, Advocate for OP Nos. 6 & 7 CORAM: JUSTICE G. SATAPATHY DATE OF HEARING & JUDGMENT:18.11.2024 G. Satapathy, J. 1. The petitioner by way of filing this writ petition prays to quash Annexure-1 by which the petitioner was disengaged from the post of Master Book Keeper (MBK) by the Resolution No. 86 dated 29.11.2020 of the Executive Committee, Gram Panchayat Level Federation (GPLF), Jatesingha and to re-appoint her as MBK with back wages during the period of termination along with penal interest there upon @ 24% per annum. W.P.(C) No.33135 of 2022 Page 1 of 10 2. The undisputed facts involved in this case are, pursuant to a notice issued by GPLF, Jatesingha inviting application for eligible candidate for the post of Master Book Keeper (MBK), the petitioner applied for such post and successfully appeared in the exam on 06.12.2017 and there upon she was appointed as MBK of Jatesingha GPLF. While working as such diligently, the petitioner received a show cause dated 28.12.2020 from the Office of GPLF Jatesingha on 08.01.2021 under Annexure-4. However, despite request of the petitioner to OP Nos. 6 & 7, she was not provided with the clear details of the allegation leveled against her in the show cause, but subsequently, the Executive Committee (EC) of GPLF, Jatesingha by way of Resolution dated 29.11.2020 under Annexure-5 disengaged her from the post of MBK. Finding no way out, the petitioner has filed this writ petition challenging her termination pleading inter alia that such termination is illegal, arbitrary and unsustainable in the eye of law. 3.
Legal Reasoning
In the course of hearing, Mr.S.Sourav, learned counsel for the petitioner by highlighting the clause No. 3.2.1 of the Gram Panchayat Level Federation (GPLF) W.P.(C) No.33135 of 2022 Page 2 of 10 Operation Manual, submits that all the members of Self Help Group (SHG) who have joined the GPLF together constitute the GPLF General Body(GB) and 2/3rd of such members constitute the quorum of GB as prescribed in clause 3.2.2(2) of that manual. Further Mr.Sourav by highlighting clause No. 3.3.1 submits that the three representative of the CLF will constitute the Executive Committee members of the GPLF, but clause No. 3.5.1(4) prescribes that the appointment, removal, remuneration and other terms of the Master Book Keeper(MBK) and Community Resource Person(CRP) should be validated by the GPLF-GB, however, in the present case, the termination of the petitioner has been approved by EC of GPLF, Jatesingha which is contrary to the guidelines and, thereby, the impugned order is unsustainable in the eye of law. Mr.Sourav, accordingly prays to allow the writ petition. 4. On the other hand, Mr.Amitav Tripathy, learned counsel by entering appearance for OP Nos. 6 & 7 by filing Vakalatnama along with counter affidavit in Court today, which are taken on record, submits that since there is no date superscribed to Annexure-1, its W.P.(C) No.33135 of 2022 Page 3 of 10 genuineness is doubted and the petitioner having been disengaged by a Resolution passed in the Executive Body meeting held on 29.11.2020, one Gayatri Nag has already been engaged temporarily as MBK whose appointment having been confirmed by way of Resolution dated 18.03.2023, the petitioner’s claim for reappointment cannot be considered. Further, Mr.Tripathy submits that there is serious allegation against the petitioner and thereby, not only the Collector, Subarnapur has directed for conducting an enquiry against the petitioner, but also the termination of the petitioner from the post of MBK has been approved by the General Body, GPLF, Jatesingha subsequently and thereby, the claim of the petitioner is unsustainable and liable to be rejected. Mr.Tripathy further submits that GPLF being an autonomous body of SHG, it is required to be registered under appropriate act and thereby the present writ petition is not maintainable. Further, Mr.Tripathy also submits that the GPLF-EC may engage MBK-cum-Auditor preferably a member from the members of SHG to maintain day-today GPLF Office’s Accounts and audit the SHG Books of Account half yearly and in this case, there W.P.(C) No.33135 of 2022 Page 4 of 10 being gross indulgence of mal practice and corruption by the petitioner and audit of SHG Books of Account having not been done, the petitioner was rightly removed for not providing monthly report of the monthly meetings. It is also submitted by Mr.Tripathy that since disputed question of facts are involved in this writ petition, the present writ petition is not maintainable. Mr.Tripathy,
Decision
accordingly prays to dismiss the writ petition. 5. Mr.S.K.Rout, learned ASC, however, supports the order passed by the authority under Annexure-6 series and prays for dismissal of the writ petition. 6. For clarity and better appreciation to resolve the issue involved in this writ petition, since the parties to the writ petition refers to certain provisions of Operational Manual of GPLF, it is considered necessary to extract the relevant clause/provisions of said manual which reads as under:- “1.6 Legal Form The GPLF is an autonomous body of SHGs that works for their personal, mutual, social and economic development. It may be registered under appropriate Act as per the law of the land. 3.2.1 Membership W.P.(C) No.33135 of 2022 Page 5 of 10 All the members of SHGs who have joined the GPLF together constitute the GPLF General Body(GB). 3.2.2(2) Meetings The quorum of the General Body meeting shall be two thirds individual members of SHGs affiliated with the GPLF. In case of no quorum, the meeting shall be adjourned to another day, which would be announced by the GPLF President. 3.3.1 Membership The three representatives of the CLF will constitute the Executive Committee members of the GPLF. 3.5.1 Appointment 3.5.1.(1) The GPLF-EC may engage Master book keeper cum auditor, preferably a member from member SHGs, to maintain day to day GPLF office accounts and audit the SHG books of account half yearly. 3.5.1.(4) The appointment, removal, remuneration and other terms of the master book-keeper & CRP should be validated by the GPLF-GB. 3.5.3. Reporting and Review 3.5.3.(2) The GPLF-EC reviews the book-keeper’s monthly report in its monthly meetings and provides necessary guidance”. 7. A bare look to the aforesaid provisions of Operation Manual of GPLF, it goes without saying that Clause No. 3.5.1(4) provides that the appointment, removal, remuneration and other terms of the MBK and CRP should be validated by the GPLF-GB, but the GB W.P.(C) No.33135 of 2022 Page 6 of 10 constitutes all the members of SHG who have joined the GPLF in terms of Clause No. 3.2.1, but the quorum for GB meeting shall be 2/3rd members of the SHG. In this case, the counter affidavit filed by OP Nos. 6 & 7 itself discloses that the petitioner was disengaged by a Resolution passed in Executive Body Meeting held on 29.11.2020 and temporarily engaged one Gayatri Nag to conduct the work of MBK. It is, therefore, apparently clear that the petitioner was disengaged by the Resolution of the Executive Body which is contrary to the provision as prescribed in Clause No. 3.5.1.(4). The learned counsel for the petitioner in the course of argument has highlighted the removal of the petitioner by the General Body, but in paragraph-8 of the counter affidavit, the OP Nos. 6 & 7 have stated inter alia the following:- “That it is respectfully submitted here that in the meantime the General body vide Resolution dated 18.03.2023 has engaged the said person Gayatri Nag permanently who is now performing her duty”. Further, the learned counsel for the petitioner has confirmed the removal of the petitioner by Executive Body by inviting the attention of the Court to W.P.(C) No.33135 of 2022 Page 7 of 10 relevant paragraph of Annexure-6 series wherein Office of Collector (Grievance Cell), Collectorate, Subarnapur has stated the following:- “EC has made a Resolution to remove the petitioner. Hence, petition is rejected as SHG is and should be an independent body”. It is, therefore, clear that the termination of the petitioner from the post of MBK is approved by the Executive Body of GPLF which is contrary to the provisions of GPLF Operation Manual and, therefore, the termination order of the petitioner being illegal is liable to be quashed, so also the consequent action taken thereon the removal of the petitioner by way of appointing anybody. 8. It is, however, canvassed by Mr.Tripathy that the person who have been appointed in the meanwhile has not made as a party and thereby the present writ petition suffers from non-joinder of necessary party, but it is to be clarified here that this Court by an order passed on 08.12.2022 has made it clear that any appointment made shall be subject to the result of the writ application. According to the counter affidavit of OP Nos. 6 & 7, one W.P.(C) No.33135 of 2022 Page 8 of 10 Gayatri Nag has been permanently engaged by the GB vide Resolution dated 18.03.2023, but the same having been done without taking leave of the Court is consequently an order passed after disengaging the petitioner on 29.11.2020 under Annexure-1. It is to be clarified here that once Annexure-1 is found to be unsustainable in the eye of law, then all subsequent order passed on the basis of Annexure-1 would have to go. However, taking into account the fact that one person namely, Gayatri Nag has been permanently engaged as MBK after termination of the petitioner, the authority concerned may adjust her in similar post, if same is available, but the same should be done in accordance with law. 9. In view of the aforesaid discussions made hereinabove and taking into account the relevant provision of GPLF Operational Manual, the issuance of Annexure-1, however, being unsustainable in the eye of law is required to be set aside, but the petitioner having not worked during the termination period, is not entitled to any back wages with interest thereon on the principle of “no work no pay”. W.P.(C) No.33135 of 2022 Page 9 of 10 10. In the result, the writ petition stands allowed on contest, but in the circumstance there is no order as to costs. Consequently, Annexure-1 is hereby quashed with restoration of the petitioner to her post as on 28.11.2020 with no back wages. The aforesaid direction be carried out within 21 days from the date of production of copy of this order. It is, however, clarified that the observation as to the appointment of Gayatri Nag shall not confer any right on her to appointment as MBK, but the same may be construed as a observation in equity and fairness. (G. Satapathy) Judge Orissa High Court, Cuttack, Dated the 18th November, 2024/Kishore Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: KISHORE KUMAR SAHOO Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa Date: 20-Nov-2024 12:41:42 W.P.(C) No.33135 of 2022 Page 10 of 10