The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C) No. 31250 of 2024 Chandrakant Sahu …. Petitioner Represented by Mr. A.K. Mohanty, Advocate -Versus - State of Odisha and Others ….
Legal Reasoning
him. The petitioner approached this Court in W.P.(C) No. 16707 of 2022. By order dated 03.07.2024, this Court, finding that the action for disengagement of the petitioner was taken without complying with the principles of natural justice, set aside the order impugned and remitted the matter to the Collector, Nuapada to conduct inquiry into the allegations leveled against the petitioner by granting him full opportunity of hearing. Pursuant to such order, the Collector passed an order on 17.10.2024 upholding the action taken Page 1 of 4 by the BDO in directing disengagement of the petitioner. The order passed by the Collector as well as the BDO are impugned in the present writ petition. 4. In so far as the order passed by the BDO is concerned, Sri A.K. Mohanty, learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the BDO is not competent to direct disengagement of the petitioner inasmuch as the Sarpanch being the appointing authority can only disengage the petitioner. As regards the order passed by the Collector, Sri Mohanty would submit that the same is not in consonance with the specific direction issued by this Court in the earlier writ petition. 5. Mr. S.R. Pattnaik, learned Addl. Government Advocate would submit that in course of inquiry conducted by the Collector, the guilt of the petitioner was clearly proved and therefore, he has been rightly directed to be disengaged him. 6. In addressing the first issue raised by Sri Mohanty, this Court finds that by office order dated 05.12.2024 (copy enclosed as Annexure-16), the BDO, acting in pursuance of the order of the Collector, requested the Sarpanch of Babebir G.P. to communicate the disengagement order to the petitioner with immediate effect. As per clarification issued by the Government in Food, Supplies and Consumer Welfare department vide letter dated 27.03.2018, the Sarpanch is competent the appointing authority of Jogan Sahayak. Further, in the absence of any guideline of the government regarding disengagement of Jogan Sahayaks, obviously Sarpanch being the appointing authority would alone be competent to disengage a Jogan Sahayak. In the instant case, the decision to disengage the petitioner was originally taken by the BDO who directed the Sarpanch to disengage the petitioner. It was thus, not Page 2 of 4 an independent decision of the Sarpanch. 7. Be that as it may, said order was set aside by this Court in the earlier writ petition. Now, the Collector has directed the BDO to ensure that the petitioner is disengaged. Accordingly, by the letter enclosed as Annexure-16, the BDO has again requested the Sarpanch to communicate the order of disengagement to the petitioner. 8. From what has been narrated hereinbefore, it is evident that the order of disengagement was passed not by the Sarpanch, who alone is competent to pass the same. The higher authority obviously cannot take a decision to disengage a person and call upon the appointing authority to comply with the same. 9. Coming to order dated 17.10.2024 passed by the Collector, it is seen that pursuant to the direction issued by this Court in the earlier writ petition, the Collector called upon the Civil Supplies Officer, Nuapada, BDO, Boden and Sarpanch, Babebir G.P. along with the petitioner to personally appear before him. The Government Officers submitted written statements along with the relevant documents. The Collector claims to have considered the written statement of the Government Officers and perused relevant documents and the representation of the petitioner. After relating the facts, the Collector abruptly comes to the conclusion that the petitioner is guilty of temporary misappropriation and immoral behavior to Government official on duty. It has not been stated as to how the guilt of temporary misappropriation was proved inasmuch as what were the circumstances under which the petitioner was held to have temporarily misappropriated the G.P. fund. That apart, nothing has been stated as regards the so called immoral behavior of the petitioner to Government officers on duty. What really Page 3 of 4 constituted such immoral behavior has not been highlighted. The person who was allegedly misbehaved by the petitioner was never examined. Thus, it is evident that the Collector has formed his opinion entirely on the basis of the written statements submitted by the Civil Supplies Officer and the BDO. Being a quasi-judicial authority it was incumbent upon the Collector to have conducted an inquiry so as to be subjectively satisfied as regards the veracity of the allegations leveled against the petitioner before holding him guilty. Such an exercise was not undertaken as is evident from a reading of the impugned order. The impugned order cannot therefore, be said to have been passed in consonance with the letter and spirit of the order passed by this Court in the earlier writ petition and as such, cannot be sustained. 10. The writ petition is therefore, allowed. The impugned orders under Annexures-15 & 16 are hereby set aside. The matter is again remitted to the Collector to conduct an enquiry into the allegations leveled against the petitioner and to arrive at a conclusion with regard to his guilt or otherwise. It is needless to mention that the Sarpanch shall thereafter act upon the findings of the Collector in accordance with law. The petitioner shall be reinstated in service forthwith and allowed to work till conclusion of the inquiry by the Collector. (Sashikanta Mishra) Judge B.C. Tudu Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHIGAL CHANDRA TUDU Reason: Authentication Location: Orissa High Court, Cuttack Date: 03-Mar-2025 20:02:53 Page 4 of 4
Arguments
Opposite Parties Represented by Mr. S.R. Pattnaik, Addl. Government Advocate CORAM: JUSTICE SASHIKANTA MISHRA ORDER_ 25.02.2025 Order No. 4. 1. 2. This matter is taken up through hybrid mode. The postal tracking report indicates that notice on the opposite party No.6 has already been delivered. There is however no appearance. 3. The petitioner was working as Jogan Sahayak in Babebir Gram Panchayat in Nuapada district since November, 2013. On some allegations, the BDO directed the Sarapanch to disengage