The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C) No.33349 of 2024 An application under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India Dr. Purusottam Swain . Petitioner Mr. Budhadev Routray, Senior Advocate State of Odisha and others along with Mr. S. Routray, Advocate -versus- . Opposite Parties Mr. Dayanidhi Lenka, Additional Government Advocate CORAM: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE A.K. MOHAPATRA Date of hearing : 24.04.2025 | Date of Judgment : 18.08.2025 A.K. Mohapatra, J. : 1. The present Writ Petition has been filed by the Petitioner challenging the impugned office order dated 29.12.2024 under Annexure- 6 to the Writ Petition passed by the Opposite Party No.4-the Dean & Principal, Maharaja Krishna Chandra Gajapati, Medical College and Hospital, whereby the service of the Petitioner has been terminated with immediate effect on disciplinary ground. The Petitioner has prayed for quashing of the impugned order of termination dated 29.12.2024, under Page 1 of 28 Annexure-6, and for reinstating him in service with all service and financial benefits. FACTUAL MATRIX OF THE CASE 2. The factual background of the present case, as culled out from the pleadings of the respective parties filed before this Court, including the Counter Affidavit filed by the Opposite Party No.4-the Dean & Principal, Maharaja Krishna Chandra Gajapati, Medical College and Hospital, in gist is as follows; the Petitioner, who is a Medical Officer of the OMHS cadre, was appointed as Assistant Professor, Orthopedic on deputation/ contractual basis vide office order dated 22.07.2024 under Annexure-3 to the Writ Petition. Following such appointment, the Petitioner joined in his service at the Maharaja Krishna Chandra Gajapati, Medical College and Hospital (hereinafter referred to as “MKCG MCH”). While the Petitioner was continuing in his service, there was some physical disturbance in the canteen of the hostel in the PG campus, on the mid night of 20.12.2024 (i.e. in the early hours of 21.12.2024) involving the Petitioner, one Dr.Rajinikanth and several others. Following such incident Dr.Rajinikanth has made allegations of physical assault against the Petitioner and some other persons. Consequently, based on such allegations, the College Council Committee conducted disciplinary Page 2 of 28 proceedings on 23.12.2024. Thereafter, the office order dated 29.12.2024, under Annexure-6 to the Writ Petition, was issued pursuant to the decision taken in the College Council Meeting held on 23.12.2024 and the communication received by the D.M.E.T, Odisha vide letter No.25143 dated 27.12.2024, wherein the service of the Petitioner along with three others were terminated with immediate effect on disciplinary grounds. The petitioner, upon being aggrieved by such an order of termination, has approached this Court by filing the present Writ Petition with the prayer as mentioned hereinabove. CONTENTIONS OF THE PETITIONER 3.
Legal Reasoning
Heard Mr.Budhadev Routray, learned Senior Counsel along with Mr.S.Routray, learned Counsel, appearing for the Petitioner. It is the Petitioner‟s stance that the impugned order of termination dated 29.12.2024, under Annexure-6 to the present Writ Petition, is bad in law and that his termination from service suffers from the latches of non- adherence to applicable guidelines and the principles of natural justice. 4. The Learned Senior Counsel for the Petitioner, at the outset submitted that the Petitioner was initially appointed pursuant to the Office Order No.5534 dated 22.05.2024 issued by the Opposite Party No.4, under Annexure-2. Referring to the aforesaid order of appointment of the Page 3 of 28 Petitioner, the Learned Senior Counsel for the Petitioner submitted that it can be clearly seen from the said order that that the Petitioner‟s service is governed as per the Govt. Resolution No.8967/H dated 25.04.2022. As such, the service of the present Petitioner is regulated by the “Guidelines for Engagement of Assistant Professor/ Associate Professor/ Professor in Government Medical/ Dental College in the State of Odisha on contractual basis” (hereinafter referred to as “Guidelines”), under Annexure-7 to the Writ Petition, issued by Health & Family Welfare Department, Government of Odisha vide its Resolution No. 8967 dated 25.04.2022. 5. Learned Senior Advocate for the Petitioner, further submitted that Clause-9(1) of the aforesaid resolution states that the engagement of the Petitioner shall be purely temporary and on a year-to-year tenure basis and which may be extended for a maximum period of four years. Further, it is also revealed that it is the Government that reserves the right to terminate the services of the faculty without assigning any reason, with one month prior notice. In the context of the aforesaid clause, the Learned Senior Counsel for the Petitioner submitted that before terminating the service of the Petitioner there was a clear requirement of providing one month‟s prior notice to the Petitioner. However, in the instant case, the Petitioner, along with three others, were terminated from their service Page 4 of 28 with immediate effect on disciplinary ground and the mandate of the one month‟s prior notice period has not been complied with by the offending Opposite Parties. 6. Next, the Learned Senior Counsel for the Petitioner submitted that the law with regard to issuing a stigmatic order of termination is very well settled inasmuch as, the order of termination being stigmatic and passed without following the principles of natural justice will be illegal, arbitrary and not sustainable in the eyes of law. Even if the service is contractual in nature, the Petitioner is required to be given an opportunity of hearing and to show cause before an order of termination can be issued against him. It is the Learned Senior Counsel‟s contention that in the instant case there has been a total non-compliance of the well-established principles of natural justice. Referring to the Counter Affidavit filed by the Opposite Party No.4, the Learned Senior Counsel for the Petitioner contended that the notice, as claimed by the Opposite Party No.4, is not as per the requirements of Clause-9(1), therefore, it cannot be said to be a notice to the Petitioner. 7. Moreover, it is the Learned Senior Counsel for the Petitioner‟s contention that the minimum requirement when the service of an employee is terminated based on his alleged misconduct, is that the charges against the delinquent have to be framed and communicated to Page 5 of 28 him seeking his reply. In the event an enquiry is made into the delinquent‟s activities, he has to be provided with an opportunity of hearing and if an adverse order is made against the delinquent, then the Opposite Parties are required to communicate the same to him and afford him the opportunity to reply to the same. In the instant case, none of the principles of natural justice have been adhered to and no show cause as per the Guidelines under Annexure-7 has been issued to the Petitioner, before terminating his service. 8. Furthermore, it is the contention of the Learned Senior Counsel for the Petitioner that the impugned order of termination dated 29.12.2024 is illegal and without authority since it has been passed by the authority incompetent to pass such order of termination. The Learned Senior Counsel for the Petitioner, at first, referring to Clause-3 of the Guidelines under Annexure-7, contended that the Selection Authority is required to obtain post facto approval from the Government before selection is made. Then, referring to Clause-9(1) of the said Guidelines, it was submitted that as per the said clause, it is the State Government who can issue the one month‟s notice before terminating the service of the Petitioner. This implies that as per the aforesaid Clause-9(1) of the Guidelines, the State Government reserves the right to terminate the services of the faculty. In light of the aforesaid provision, the Learned Senior Counsel for the Page 6 of 28 Petitioner submitted that no authority other than the State Government is competent to terminate the service of the Petitioner. 9. The Learned Senior Counsel for the Petitioner then drew the attention of the court to the impugned termination order under Annexure- 6 and stated that the order was issued by Dean & Principal, MKCG MCH and not by the State Government. Therefore, the same has clearly been passed by an authority without having the jurisdiction to do so, and, as such, the said order of termination dated 29.12.2024 suffers from illegality and jurisdictional error. Learned Senior Counsel for the Petitioner further contended that if the Guidelines provide that a thing is to be done in a particular way, and it is done is some other way, then such conduct will be illegal. To support this arguments, the Learned Senior Counsel for the Petitioner has placed reliance on a catena of decisions of the Hon‟ble Apex Court in GRIDCO Ltd. v. Sadananda Doloi, reported in (2011) 15 SCC 16, specifically paragraphs 38 and 39; Swati Priyadarshini v. State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors, reported in AIR 2024 SC 4339, specifically paragraphs 32 to 36; OPTO Circuits (India) Ltd. v. Axis Bank, reported in AIR 2021 SC 729, specifically paragraph 14; paragraph 19 of the judgement of the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in U.P. State Road Transport Corporation & Others v. Brijesh Kumar & Ors. Page 7 of 28 Reported in AIR 2024 SC 4424; and Govt. of A.P. v. N. Ramanaiah, reported in (2009) 7 SCC 165. 10. Thereafter, the Learned Senior Counsel for the Petitioner has contended that the Petitioner has been wrongfully terminated from his service despite none of the allegations against the Petitioner having been proven. Even though an FIR has been filed against the Petitioner, mere filing of FIR does not in any way prove the guilt of the Petitioner, unless a proper enquiry is conducted in the matter. 11. Next, referring to the Counter Affidavit filed by the Opposite Party No.4, the Learned Senior Counsel for the Petitioner submitted that the letter dated 21.12.2024, under Annexure-H/4 to the Counter, asking the Petitioner for show-cause and the letter dated 21.12.2024, under Annexure-G/4 to the Counter, calling for urgent College Council meeting on 23.12.2024, have not been received by the Petitioner. Instead, the Dean & Principal of the College had orally directed the Petitioner to submit an application to the D.M.E.T, Odisha regarding allegations by Dr.V.Rajinikanth. The Learned Senior Counsel for the Petitioner contended that unless a proper full-fledged inquiry is conducted, the Petitioner cannot be held guilty solely on the basis of a committee report. As such, the order of termination of the Petitioner‟s service is not sustainable in the eyes of law. Page 8 of 28 12. Lastly, referring to Clause-9(7) of the Guidelines, the Learned Senior Counsel for the Petitioner contended that in the event the service of the Petitioner is terminated, then he will be debarred from being selected for a period of next three years, which will cause serious hardships to the Petitioner and hamper his career progression. In such view of the matter, it was prayed that the impugned order of termination dated 29.12.2024 under Annexure-6 be quashed and the Petitioner be reinstated in service with all consequential service benefits. CONTENTIONS BY THE STATE-OPPOSITE PARTIES 13. Heard Mr.Dayanidhi Lenka, Additional Government Advocate appearing for the Opposite Parties. The Opposite Parties have, at the outset, strongly disputed the Petitioner‟s stance and have contended that the impugned order of termination dated 29.12.2024, under Annexure-6 to the present Writ Petition does not suffer from any illegality and that the Petitioner has been rightfully terminated from his deputation. 14. Learned Counsel for State-Opposite Parties, before beginning his arguments, clarifies before this court that the doctors that have been appointed in Medical Colleges and Hospitals are direct recruitees appointed through OPSC and their promotional avenue will be up to D.M.E.T. As to doctors appointed in district peripheral medicals placed in Page 9 of 28 OMHS Cadre, their promotion avenue is up-to CDMO & DHS (Directorate of Health Services). So far as the appointing authority for the both the categories of doctors is concerned, it is the State Government, i.e., the Secretary, Health & Family Welfare Department, Govt. of Odisha for OMHS cadre doctors and the D.M.E.T is the appointing authority for the doctors appointed to Medical College and Hospitals. The Learned Counsel for State-Opposite Parties also states that the cadres of both the above-mentioned categories of doctors are different from one another. 15. Learned Counsel for State-Opposite Parties, at this stage, has drawn the attention of this Court to the State Government Resolution No.8967 dated 25.04.2022, under Annexure-7 to the present Writ Petition, wherein guidelines have been laid down regarding the engagement of Asst. Professor/Associate Professor in Government Medical/Dental Colleges in the State. Clause-3 of the aforesaid Resolution, titled “Selection Authority”, provides that the D.M.E.T, Odisha shall be the selecting authority competent to enter into contract with faculties to be recruited contractually. However, when required in exigency, the D.M.E.T, Odisha may direct the Dean & Principal of a Govt. Medical College to conduct the selection and get the same approved by the D.M.E.T, Odisha. Page 10 of 28 16. The Learned Counsel for State-Opposite Parties contended that on the basis of the aforesaid resolution, the Petitioner was selected by the Dean & Principal of MKCG Medical College and after due approval of the D.M.E.T, Odisha on 21.05.2024, the Petitioner was appointed as Asst. Professor in Orthopaedic Department on contractual basis by the Dean & Principal of MKCG Medical College vide Office Order No.5534 dated 22.05.2024, under Annexure-2 to the Writ Petition. Therefore, it is the Dean & Principal of MKCG Medical College & Hospital who is the Appointing Authority of the Petitioner. 17. To further substantiate his stance, the Learned Counsel for State- Opposite Parties, again referred to the State Government Resolution No.8967 dated 25.04.2022, under Annexure-7, specifically Appendix-1 to the said resolution containing “Agreement for Contractual Service”. Learned Counsel for State-Opposite Parties contended that the said agreement is required to be signed by the contractual candidate, i.e. the “SECOND PARTY” and the Dean & Principal, i.e. the “FIRST PARTY”. Clause-8(d) of the said agreement, which is a non-obstante clause, provides that the services of the second party (the contractual candidate) may be terminated at any point of time by the competent authority of HFWD if the second party is involved in criminal offence, or guilty of Page 11 of 28 insubordination, intemperance or other misconduct or breach or non- performance or at the completion of the contract period as mentioned. 18. Furthermore, the Learned Counsel for State-Opposite Parties has clarified that as per the Letter No.18133 dated 22.07.2024 issued by the Additional Secretary to Government of Odisha in the Health & Family Welfare Department, under Annexure-3, the Secretary to Government of Odisha, Health & Family Welfare Department is the appointing authority of the Petitioner for OMHS Cadre. And, as per the appointment letter dated 22.05.2024 issued by the Dean & Principal MKCG Medical College & Hospital, Berhampur, under Annexure-2, it is the Dean & Principal, MKCG MCH who is the Appointing Authority of the Petitioner so far as the post of Assistant Professor on deputation basis is concerned. Therefore, the service of the Petitioner has been rightfully terminated from his post of Assistant Professor on deputation basis by the Dean & Principal, MKCG MCH vide impugned termination order dated
Decision
29.12.2024 under Annexure-6 to the Writ Petition. 19. A counter Affidavit has also been filed by the Opposite Party No.4- the Dean and Principal, MKCG MCH, Brahmapur, Ganjam. It has been stated in the Counter Affidavit that, the Petitioner had been provisionally/ temporarily selected as Assistant Professor in the Surgery Department on deputation basis, vide the Order No.5534 dated 22.05.2024, under Page 12 of 28 Annexure-A/4 to the Counter Affidavit. The Learned Counsel for State- Opposite Parties, referring to the said Counter Affidavit, submitted before this Court that the fact of the Petitioner‟s assault on one Dr.V.Rajinikanth, on the night of 20.12.2024 at around 12:30 am (i.e. early hours of 21.12.2024), is clear from the complaint filed by the victim-Dr.V.Rajinikanth, the complaint filed by Dr.Narendra Behera, HOD, Paediatrics and advisor to P.G Student Union, and the treatment records of the Dr.V.Rajnikanth under Annexure-B/4, Annexure-C/4 and Annexure-D/4 respectively to the Counter Affidavit filed on behalf of the Opposite Party No.4. In fact, after the occurrence, an FIR was also registered against the Petitioner at Baidyanathpur Police station as PS Case No.600/2024. A copy of the said FIR is furnished as Annexure-E/4 to the Counter Affidavit filed by the Opposite Party No.4. Moreover, the learned Additional Government Advocate contended that in addition to the FIR which was lodged against the Petitioner, the boarders of the PG Hostel also conducted an in-house meeting on 21.12.2024 and passed a resolution, under Annexure-F/4 to the Counter, prohibiting the Petitioner from the PG Hostel. 20. Next, the Learned Counsel for State-Opposite Parties has contended that before the termination order was issued against the Petitioner, he was provided with ample opportunity to show cause. He Page 13 of 28 further contended that after the occurrence, in the night of 20.12.2024, the Dean & Principal, MKCG MCH convened a „College Council Meeting‟ on 23.12.2024 by his letter dated 21.12.2024, under Annexure- H/4 to the aforesaid Counter Affidavit. In the said letter, the Dean & Principal, MKCG MCH had asked the Petitioner to show cause on the allegation made by Dr.V.Rajnikanth and to submit his statement before the Committee. In the said meeting, the Petitioner was given sufficient opportunity to explain his stance and the Petitioner‟s statement was also reduced to writing. A copy of the Disciplinary Proceedings by the Enquiry Committee and the statement of the Petitioner have been provided under Annexure-J/4 series to the Counter Affidavit filed by the Opposite Party No.4. 21. Learned Counsel for State-Opposite Parties further contended that it was only after viewing the retrieved video footage, cross-examining the Petitioner (along with other perpetrators), and after considering the statement of the Petitioner, that the Committee prepared an „Action Taken Report‟ which was submitted to the D.M.E.T, Odisha, Bhubaneswar vide letter No.63-C dated 24.12.2024, under Annexure-K/4 to the Counter. In fact, it was contended that the Petitioner has also submitted his representation regarding the incident before the D.M.E.T, Odisha, Bhubanseswar, a copy of which has been attached under Page 14 of 28 Annexure-L/4 to the Counter. Learned Counsel for State-Opposite Parties submitted that consequent upon the decision taken in the College Council meeting, the Action Taken Report, and the direction received from the D.M.E.T, Odisha vide letter No.25143 dated 27.12.2024, the Petitioner along with others were terminated from their services with immediate effect on disciplinary grounds via the termination order dated 29.12.2024 under Annexure-M/4 to the Counter Affidavit. As such, it was contended by the Learned Counsel for State-Opposite Parties that the Petitioner has been given an opportunity of hearing at each stage of the proceeding and the principles of natural justice have been thoroughly followed before the Petitioner‟s service on deputation was terminated. To support his contentions, the Learned Counsel for State-Opposite Parties has relied on the decision of the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in Kunal Nanda v. Union of India & Ors. reported in 2000 (5) SCC 362 and Ratilal B.Soni & Ors. v. State of Gujarat & Ors. reported in AIR 1990 SC 1132, in the Counter Affidavit. 22. In respect of the contention of the Petitioner that he has not been given one month‟s notice prior to his termination, the Learned Counsel for State-Opposite Parties submitted that the engagement of the Petitioner was on purely temporary basis and could be terminated without assigning any reason. However, since in the present case there were sufficient Page 15 of 28 reasons for the termination of his service, on disciplinary grounds, there was no need to serve one month‟s notice upon the Petitioner prior to the termination of his service. Lastly, the Learned Counsel for State-Opposite Parties contended that in the light of the incident that had occurred on the night of 20.12.2024, i.e. at around 12:30 am on 21.12.2024, the presence of the Petitioner in the campus premises was likely to aggravate the situation and could have led to other similar incidents. Therefore, the termination of his service was also necessary for maintaining peace and harmony in the campus. 23. An additional Counter Affidavit has also been filed on behalf of the Opposite Party No.4-the Dean and Principal, MKCG MCH, Brahmapur, Ganjam. In the said additional Counter Affidavit it has been contended that vide Office Order No.5534 dated 22.05.2024, under Annexure-2, the State Government has made the resolution No.1532 dated 19.12.2024, under Annexure-H/1 to the additional Counter Affidavit. The appointment of the Petitioner has been made pursuant to the aforesaid resolution of the State Government dated 19.12.2024. it has been further contended in the additional Counter Affidavit that in the said resolution No.1532 dated 19.12.2024, in order to expedite filling up of vacant medical posts, the State Government has delegated the power to the Dean & Principals of Medical Colleges to conduct recruitment for appointment Page 16 of 28 to contractual and deputation posts through walk-in interviews/ counselling and to report the same to the D.M.E.T, Odisha. 24. It has been further stated in the additional Counter Affidavit on behalf of the Opposite Party No.4 that after the service of the Petitioner on deputation as Assistant Professor was terminated, he is deemed to have returned back to his post in the Directorate of Health Services. In fact, following the termination of the service of the Petitioner, an order bearing Letter No.9470 dated 28.03.2025 was passed and pursuant to such order the Petitioner has already joined as LTRMO, SDH Bhanjanagar, Ganjam. The Petitioner has also accepted his appointment to the said post on 29.03.2025. As such, it was contended that the Petitioner has erroneously interpreted the word „termination‟. 25. Furthermore, since the Petitioner was on purely deputation basis, the termination of his services as per Clause-8(d) of the agreement under Appendix-1 to the State Government Resolution No.8967 dated 25.04.2022, under Annexure-7 to the present writ petition does not wipe off the services of the Petitioner completely. Instead, the Petitioner has only been disengaged from deputation as Assistant Professor at MKCG MCH. It has been contended that the Action Taken Report by the Committee clearly states that the Petitioner has only been terminated from his present post, i.e. Assistant Professor, Orthopedics and Page 17 of 28 termination from the said post does not in any way hamper the service benefits of the Petitioner. In such view of the matter, it was contended that the Writ Petition filed by the Petitioner has become infructuous and is devoid of merit. Therefore, the same is liable to be dismissed. ANALYSIS OF THE COURT 26. Heard Mr.Budhadev Routray learned Senior Advocate along with Mr.S.Routray for the Petitioner and Mr.Dayanidhi Lenka, Additional Government Advocate for the Opposite Parties. Perused the Writ Petition, the Counter Affidavit filed by the Opposite Party No.4, the Rejoinder filed by the Petitioner, and other documents annexed to the Writ Petition. 27. At the outset, it is clear that initially vide Order No.4928 dated 07.05.2024 under Annexure-1 to the present Writ Petition, which was passed pursuant to the letter No.7041 dated 30.04.2024, the Petitioner was relieved from MKCG MCH after completing two years of post PG bond service. In the same order the Petitioner was directed to report before the DHS (O)/Government in H&FW Department for further place of posting. Then, vide order No.5534 dated 22.05.2024, the Petitioner was appointed temporarily as Assistant professor on deputation/ contractual basis in the Orthopedics discipline. The appointment order reveals that the terms and conditions of his service will be governed by Page 18 of 28 the State Government resolution No.8967/H dated 25.04.2022, under Annexure-7, i.e. the Guidelines. The relevant clauses of the Guidelines are reproduced hereinbelow for better appreciation; Clause-3 of the Guidelines under Annexure-7; “3. Selection Authority: The Director of Medical Education & Training, Odisha shall be the selecting authority and competent to enter into contract with faculties to be recruited on contract. While engaging Associate Professors and Professors on contract, the tentative vacancies against which the eligible candidates in feeder cadre are not available immediately, may be considered. Such list of vacancies shall be obtained from the Government for consideration. However, if required in exigency, the Director of Medical Education & Training may direct the Dean & Principal of a Govt. Medical College to conduct the selection and send the select list along with the proceedings to D.M.E.T Odisha. For all such selections by D.M.E.T, Odisha or Dean & Principals, the D.M.E.T, Odisha shall issue engagement order and intimate the same for obtaining post the Government.” facto approval of Clause-9(1) of the Guidelines under Annexure-7 “9. Terms and Conditions: 1. The engagement shall be purely temporary and on year to year tenure basis and may be for a maximum period of four years subject Page 19 of 28 to satisfactory performance. However the Government reserves the right to terminate the services of the faculty with one month prior notice without assigning any reason.” Clause-8(a) of the agreement under Appendix-1 to the Guidelines under Annexure-7; “8. TERMINATION the HFWD may a. In case of improper conduct by the Second Party, this Agreement and no compensation shall be payable in such a case.” terminate Later on, the above-discussed untoward incident occurred in the night of 20.12.2024 within the college campus. Following such incident, the Petitioner has been terminated from his service vide the termination order dated 29.12.2024 under Annexure-6. The crux of the issue involved in the present Writ Petition revolves around the aforesaid order of termination. 28. On perusal of the Writ Petition along with the submissions made and Rejoinder filed by the Petitioner, this Court observes that the Petitioner has challenged the impugned order of termination under Annexure-6 on three primary grounds. Firstly, that the order of termination has been issued without following the principles of natural justice. Secondly, no prior notice of one month, as stipulated by the Page 20 of 28 applicable Guidelines, was sent to the Petitioner before the termination of his service. Thirdly, the authority issuing the order of termination does not have the jurisdiction to terminate the service of the Petitioner. Therefore, in order to evaluate the merits of the relief sought by the Petitioner, this Court is required to first adjudicate the aforesaid three issues at hand. 29. So far as the nature of service of the Petitioner is concerned, it is beyond doubt that the Petitioner‟s service was on deputation basis, as is evident from the appointment order under Annexure-2 issued in favour of the Petitioner. It is also clear from the said order of appointment that the terms and conditions of the Petitioner‟s service shall be governed by the Guidelines under Annexure-7. Clause-9 of the said Guidelines deals with “Terms and Conditions” and Clause-9(1) of the Guidelines enumerates that the State Government reserves the right to terminate the temporary service of the employees by providing a prior notice of one month. However, Clause-9(1) clearly states that the aforesaid procedure is to be followed when the termination is without assigning any reason, i.e. when the termination is made as per the Guidelines and is a termination simpliciter. 30. In the instant case nothing has been brought on record by the Opposite Parties to show that one month‟s prior notice was indeed given Page 21 of 28 to the Petitioner before issuing the order of termination in his favour. As such, this Court is of the view that no prior notice of one month was given to the Petitioner. However, on perusal of the order of termination under Annexure-6 it can be seen that the service of the Petitioner has been terminated on “disciplinary ground”. Therefore, the aforesaid order cannot be said to be a termination simpliciter. Instead, it appears to be a stigmatic order. Now, the law regarding termination of a government employee‟s service is well-settled (reference maybe had to Parshotam Lal Dhingra case reported in 1958 SCR 828, Jagdish Mitter v. Union of India, reported in 1963 SCC OnLine SC 75 and a catena of decisions along similar lines). The settled principle can be summarised thusly; if the service of the temporary employee is terminated as per the contract of his engagement/ guidelines, i.e. by providing the notice as stipulated under the said contract/ guidelines, then the said order of termination will be simpliciter in nature and proper. However, if the services of the temporary employee has been terminated by an order which is not a termination simpliciter, i.e. the termination is punitive in nature, then the order of termination is stigmatic and shall attract the protection of Article 311(2) of the Constitution of India. 31. Article 311(2) of the Constitution of India postulates that no government employee shall be dismissed or removed or reduced in rank Page 22 of 28 unless an inquiry is conducted into the matter and the delinquent is communicated the charges against him and given a reasonable opportunity of being heard in respect of those charges. As has already been established, the Petitioner was appointed on deputation basis, i.e. his service was temporary/ contractual in nature. Now, it is well-settled through a catena of decisions of the Hon‟ble Supreme Court that contractual employee can also avail the protection of the mandatory provision contained in Article 311(2) of the Constitution of India in the event the termination of his service in stigmatic in nature (reference maybe had to Parshotam Lal Dhingra v. Union of India, reported in AIR 1958 SC 36, Ramnath Prasad v. State of Bihar reported in (1988) 2 SCC 423, State of Bihar v. Shiva Bhikshuk Mishra reported in (1970) 2 SCC 871, State of U.P. v Kaushal Kishore Shukla, reported in (1991) 1 SCC 691 and other similar decisions). Therefore, it is established that the Petitioner in the instant case is entitled to the protection afforded by Article 311(2) of our Constitution. 32. Consequently, this Court is now required to examine whether the protection afforded under Article 311(2) of the Constitution of India was extended to the Petitioner before his service was terminated. On perusal of the documents annexed to the Counter Affidavit filed by the Opposite Party No.4, specifically the letter No.14980 dated 21.12.2024 under Page 23 of 28 Annexure-H/4 to the said Counter, it can be seen that the Dean & Principal, MKCG MCH has informed Petitioner about the College Council Meeting to be held on 23.12.2024 and asked the Petitioner to attend the meeting and submit his statement regarding the incident that took place on 21.12.2024 at around 12:30 am. The complaint letter by Dr. V.Rajnikath concerning the incident has also been annexed to the said letter. This indicates that the subject matter of the proposed meeting and the issue on which the Petitioner is required to submit his statement was communicated to him. Thereafter, the College Council Meeting was conducted and it can be seen from the copy of the attendance sheet under Annexure-J/4 series that the Petitioner was present in the said meeting. Additionally, the said Annexure-J/4 series also contains written statements of several persons present at the meeting, one of them being the present Petitioner. A copy of the proceeding of the said meeting is also present under Annexure-J/4 to the Counter Affidavit filed by the Opposite Party No.4. 33. After the proceeding was concluded, an “action taken report” was submitted to the D.M.E.T, Odisha, Bhubaneswar, vide Letter No.63-C dated 24.12.2024, under Annexure-K/4 to the Opposite Party No.4‟s Counter Affidavit. In fact, it can be seen from Annexure-L/4, annexed to the Counter Affidavit by the Opposite Party No.4, that the Petitioner has Page 24 of 28 also submitted his representation regarding the incident to the D.M.E.T, Odisha. Since the impugned order of termination under Annexure-6 was passed on 29.12.2024, it can be fairly ascertained that the Petitioner was indeed given an opportunity of hearing before his contractual service was terminated. Thus, this Court has no hesitation in concluding that the Petitioner has been granted proper opportunity of being heard and the provision under Article 311(2) has been followed prior to terminating the service of the Petitioner. The first and second issues are answered accordingly. 34. Next, this Court has to determine as to whether the Dean & Principal, MKCG MCH has the requisite jurisdiction to issue the order of termination of service of the Petitioner. The impugned order of termination under Anexure-6 reveals that the said order has been issued by the Dean & Principal, MKCG MCH as per the decision taken in the College Council meeting and according to the direction received from the D.M.E.T, Odisha vide letter No.25143 dated 27.12.2024. On perusal of the office order of appointment dated 22.05.2024 under Annexure-2, it can be seen that the said order of appointment was issued by the Dean& Principal, MKCG MCH. Also, the said appointment order reveals that the appointment has been made by the Dean& Principal, MKCG MCH in exercise of the delegated powers vide the Resolution No.l532/H dated Page 25 of 28 19.01.2024, issued by the State Government in the H&FW Department, and in pursuance of the communication received from the D.M.E.T, Odisha vide Letter No.7883 dated 21.05.2024. 35. Now, on perusal of the Resolution No.l532/H dated 19.01.2024 under Annexure-H/1 to the Additional Affidavit filed by the Opposite Party No.4, it can be seen that the State Government in H&FW Department has directed the Dean & Principal of Medical Colleges, along with the Director of PGIMER and Capital Hospital, Bhubaneswar and the Principal, SCB Dental College, Cuttack shall conduct recruitment of Assistant Professors amongst other posts on the 12th of every month via walk-in interview/ counselling and report the same to the D.M.E.T Odisha. Similarly, the D.M.E.T, Odisha shall conduct recruitment for remaining vacancies in various posts on the 25th of every month and report to the H&FW Department. 36. Furthermore, as per the agreement under Appendix-1 to the Guidelines under Annexure-7, which has been signed by the Petitioner, indicates that the said agreement has been signed between the „FIRST PARTY‟ the H&FW Department, Government of Odisha represented through the Dean & Principal and the „SECOND PARTY‟ the appointee. Similarly, in Clause-8 of the said agreement titled “TERMINATION”, specifically Clause-(a) and Clause-(d) thereof, it is indicated that the Page 26 of 28 H&FWD may terminate the agreement and that the services of the „SECOND PARTY‟ may be terminated by the “competent authority of the H&FWD”. It is a settled principle of law, as enumerated under Article 311(1) of the Constitution of India, that it is the Appointing Authority which has the power to terminate the services of the employee. In the instant case, from the aforesaid analysis, it is clear that the State Government in H&FW Department is the appropriate authority to terminate the service of the Petitioner. 37. Moreover, there is nothing on record to show that the power to terminate the services of the Petitioner has been expressly delegated by the State Government to the Dean & Principal MKCG MCH. Accordingly, with regard to the third issue at hand, this Court is of the opinion that the Dean & Principal, MKCG MCH did not have the jurisdiction to issue the impugned order of termination dated 29.12.2024 under Annexure-6 to the present Writ Petition. Furthermore, it has been brought to the notice of this court, by the Additional Counter Affidavit filed by the Opposite Party No.4, that after the service of the Petitioner as Assistant Professor on deputation basis at MKCG MCH was terminated, the Petitioner was reverted back to his post in the Directorate of Health Services and that the Petitioner has already joined as LTRMO, SDH Page 27 of 28 Bhanjanagar, Ganjam on 29.03.2025 vide Letter No.9470 dated 28.03.2025. Such fact has also not been disputed by the Petitioner. 38. Consequently, In view of the aforesaid analysis, this court is of the view that the impugned order of rejection dated 29.12.2024, under Annexure-6 to the Writ Petition, is bad in law, inasmuch as it has been issued by an authority not having the jurisdiction to issue such order of termination against the Petitioner. As such, this Court has no hesitation in quashing said order of termination under Annexure-6. Accordingly, the same is hereby quashed. 39. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of. However, there shall be no order as to costs. (Aditya Kumar Mohapatra) Judge Orissa High Court, Cuttack The 18th August, 2025/ S.K. Rout, Jr. Stenographer Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: SANTANU KUMAR ROUT Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Date: 18-Aug-2025 18:24:36 Page 28 of 28