Sarangadhar Mallick vs Superintendent Of Police And
2021 Latest Caselaw 9140 Ori

             IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

                          WPC (OA) No. 2146 of 2002

            Sarangadhar Mallick                  ....                              Petitioner
                                                               Mr. P. Routray, Advocate
                                                 -Versus -
            Superintendent of Police and         ....                  Opposite Parties
            another                                                                  .
                                                                    Mr. N.K. Praharaj,
                                                                    Standing Counsel.

                    CORAM:
                     DR. JUSTICE B.R. SARANGI
                                      ORDER

01.09.2021

Order No. This matter is taken up through hybrid mode.

2. None appears for the petitioner at the time of call.

3. Heard Mr. N.K. Praharaj, learned Standing Counsel.

Perused the record.

4. The petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking to quash the order no.442 of 2002 passed by opposite party no.1, and to issue direction to the opposite party no.1 to appoint him as Gramarakhi forthwith and also release in his favour salary from 01.06.1994, within a stipulated time.

5. Mr. N.K. Praharaj, learned Standing Counsel contended that the petitioner was engaged as Gramarakhi under the provisions of Orissa Grama Rakhi Act, 1967. While continuing as such, he was involved in a criminal case and, therefore, he was penalized for negligence under section 7 of the said Act, where institution of departmental proceedings

has not been prescribed and, as such, only an enquiry is to be conducted for his negligence in duty and show cause is required to be received from the petitioner, which in the instant case has been adopted. Therefore, the petitioner has not been allowed to discharge his duty and, as such, his representation has also been rejected rightly.

6. On perusal of records and after hearing learned Standing Counsel for the State, this Court finds that the petitioner was appointed as Grama Rakhi in beat No.119 under Govindpur P.S. in the district of Cuttack as per the appointment order issued on 14.03.1979. He remained absent from his duty without intimation to the authority and for the said reasons he had been many times verbally reprimanded. His continuous absent from duty resulted in his discharge from Grama Rakhi. The reasons for such absence from duty was due to his involvement in a criminal case in Niali Police Station and, as such, on investigation, the local police and supervising officer, were satisfied that there was prima facie evidence against the petitioner. Consequentially, he was arrested and forwarded to the court of law. After due adjudication, judgment was pronounced by the appropriate forum and more so he had not been honorably acquitted from the criminal charge and, as such, it has only mentioned about his simply acquittal being found not guilty from the criminal case vide ST Case No.143 of 1999 arising out of G.R. Case No.483 of 1994. Thereafter, when the petitioner submitted his representation, the same was considered in proper perspective and the Superintendent of Police, Cuttack while considering his representation dated 04.12.2000, in pursuance of the order

of the tribunal passed in O.A. No.2849(c) of 2001, passed order no.442 of 2002 stating therein that since the petitioner was discharged from Grama Rakhi force w.e.f. 28.12.1998 for his continuous absence from duty, he is not entitled for any wages for the said period. As such, the claim of the petitioner to resume duty as Grama Rakhi and for payment of arrear wages for the period from 01.06.1994 onwards, i.e. after acquittal from the criminal charge, does not arise. As it appears, the petitioner has been engaged as a Grama Rakhi under the Orissa Grama Rakhi Act, 1967 and if any penalty is to be imposed for negligence in duty, as per Section 7 of the Act, enquiry has to be conducted and show cause has to be issued calling upon the petitioner to file reply to the same, which has been followed in the present case.

7. In that view of the matter, the action taken by the authority is well justified. As such, the representation filed by the petitioner for continuing as Grama Rakhi has rightly been rejected by the authority. Accordingly, this Court does not find any illegality or irregularity committed by the authority in passing the order impugned so as to warrant interference of this Court.

8. Accordingly, the writ petition stands dismissed.

Ashok                                               (Dr. B.R. Sarangi)
                                                         Judge