Orissa High Court
Naba Kishore Patra vs State Of Odisha & Ors. ..... Opposite ... on 18 March, 2025
Author: Aditya Kumar Mohapatra
Bench: Aditya Kumar Mohapatra
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
WP(C) No.4738 of 2025
Naba Kishore Patra ..... Petitioner
Represented By Adv. -
Sushil Kumar Patnaik
-versus-
State Of Odisha & Ors. ..... Opposite Parties
Represented By Adv. -
A. Pati, A.S.C.
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADITYA KUMAR
MOHAPATRA
ORDER
18.03.2025 Order No.
02. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual /Physical Mode).
2. Heard learned counsel for the Petitioner as well as learned Additional Standing Counsel for the State-Opposite Parties. Perused the writ application as well as the documents annexed thereto.
3. The present writ application has been filed by the Petitioner with a prayer to quash the impugned order dated 22.01.2025 under Annexure-5 and order dated 07.08.2024 under Annexure-1 to the writ application. Further, prayer has also been made for a direction to the Opposite Parties to reinstate him in his post forthwith and accord all financial and service benefits as is due and admissible to the Page 1 of 5. Petitioner within a stipulated period of time.
4. Learned counsel for the Petitioner at the outset contended that the Petitioner, who was working as Additional Tahasildar, Pipili (in- charge of Sub-Registrar, Pipili), has executed 3 numbers of registered documents with 16 numbers of deeds in visit mode under Section 31 of the Registration Act, 1908 on 29.01.2024. Taking into consideration the aforesaid conduct of the Petitioner, the Opposite Party No.2 placed the Petitioner under suspension vide order dated 07.08.2024 pending drawal of a proceeding against him. While putting the Petitioner under suspension, a detailed report was called for in respect of execution of 16 numbers of deeds on visit mode on 29.01.2024 by the Petitioner from the Opposite Party No.5. The Opposite Party No.5 submitted the report on 09.08.2024 in response to the aforesaid letter dated 07.08.2024. Thereafter, the Petitioner made a representation to the Opposite Party No.2 for his reinstatement in service on 07.10.2024. The Opposite Party No.2 without considering the representation for reinstatement in its proper prospective, rejected the representation of the Petitioner for reinstatement vide his order dated 22.11.2024. Being aggrieved by such conduct of the Opposite Party No.2, the Petitioner has approached this Court by filing the present writ application.
5. Learned counsel for the Petitioner at the outset contended that the Petitioner has been placed under suspension without any basis and in the absence of any material which would establish any wrong doing on the part of the Petitioner while discharging his duties as Sub-Registrar of Pipili on 29.01.2024. He further contended that although several months have passed when the order was initially passed and the Petitioner was placed under suspension on Page 2 of 5. 07.08.2024, such decision has not been reviewed by the Opposite Party No.2. In the aforesaid context, learned counsel for the Petitioner, drawing attention of this Court to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ajay Kumar Choudhary vs. Union of India & Anr. reported in (2015) 7 SCC 291 as well as Office Memorandum of the G.A. Dept., Govt. of Odisha dated 03.02.2017 under Annexure-6, contended that the Opposite Parties are required to review the decision to place the Petitioner under suspension after expiry of the three months from the date of initial order based on which the Petitioner was placed under suspension. He further contended that the Opposite Parties, having not followed the aforesaid procedure of review, further continuance of the Petitioner under suspension is bad in law.
6. Learned Additional Standing Counsel for the State on the other hand contended that the order of suspension is not a punishment under service jurisprudence. He further contended that in the event the Petitioner approaches the concerned authority by producing relevant documentary evidence in support of his contention, then he would be definitely restored in service by the Opposite Parties. He further contended that in the event the decision putting the Petitioner under suspension has not been reviewed by the Opposite Party No.2 in terms of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ajay Kumar Choudhary's case (supra) as well as the Office Memorandum of the G.A. Dept. under Annexure-6, it is open to the petitioner to approach the Opposite Party No.2 and in such eventuality, the learned counsel for the State will have no objection to the same.
7. Considering the submissions made by the learned counsels for the parties, on a careful examination of the background facts as well Page 3 of 5. as materials on record, further keeping in view the fact that the Petitioner is continuing under suspension since 07.08.2024 and in the meantime no proceeding has been initiated against the Petitioner, this Court deems it proper to dispose of the writ application at the stage of admission by granting liberty to the Petitioner to approach the Opposite Party No.2 by filing a detailed representation along with a copy of the judgment in Ajay Kumar Choudhary's case (supra) as well as Office Memorandum of the G.A. Dept., Govt. of Odisha dated 03.02.2017 under Annexure-6 within two weeks from today. In such eventuality, the Opposite Party No.2 shall do well to follow the procedure as has been laid down in the above noted judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ajay Kumar Choudhary's case (supra) as well as the procedure that has been prescribed in the O.M. dated 03.02.2017 under Annexue-6. The Opposite Party No.2 is further directed to take a decision on the representation of the Petitioner as has been directed hereinabove within a period of four weeks from the date of communication of a certified copy of this order. The representation shall be disposed of by passing a speaking and reasoned order. The final decision so taken by the Opposite Party No.2 shall be communicated to the Petitioner within a week from the date of taking such a decision.
8. Considering the submissions made by the learned counsel for the Petitioner that the Petitioner has not been paid any subsistence allowance during the period of suspension, it is open to the petitioner to approach the Opposite Party No.2 for payment of such subsistence allowance, if the same is permissible under the rules, as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of four weeks from the date the Petitioner approaches the Opposite Party No.2.
Page 4 of 5.9. With the aforesaid observations/ directions, the writ application stands disposed of.
Issue urgent certified copy of this order as per Rules.
( A.K. Mohapatra )
Judge
Anil
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed Page 5 of 5.
Signed by: ANIL KUMAR
SAHOO
Reason: Authentication
Location: High Court of Orissa
Date: 19-Mar-2025 14:06:25