Orissa High Court
Bhaskar Chandra Majhi vs State Of Odisha And Others on 11 April, 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
W.A. No.1159 of 2022
Bhaskar Chandra Majhi .... Appellant
Mr. U. K. Samal, Advocate
-versus-
State of Odisha and others .... Respondents
Mr. Debakanta Mohanty, AGA
CORAM:
THE CHIEF JUSTICE
JUSTICE G. SATAPATHY
ORDER
11.04.2023
Order No.
02. 1. The challenge in the present appeal is to the judgment dated 8th
August, 2022 passed by the learned Single Judge allowing W.P.(C)
No.20396 of 2018 filed by Respondent No.5 whereby he had
questioned an order dated 10th September, 2018 passed by the
President of the Utkalmani Gopabandhu Higher Secondary School
at Ukhunda, Keonjhar where he was working as Lecturer-in-Odia,
placing him under suspension pending disciplinary proceedings.
2. The Respondent No.5 had also challenged the subsequent order
dated 13th November, 2018 of the Directorate of Higher Secondary
Education, Odisha approving the above decision to place him under
suspension.
3. This Court has heard the submissions of Mr. U. K. Samal,
learned counsel appearing for the Appellant.
4. The learned Single Judge has in the impugned order noted that
even in the writ petition which had been pending for almost four
years, none of the Opposite Parties including the present Appellant
filed counter affidavit despite repeated opportunities.
5. A perusal of the order-sheet in the writ petition reveals that on
13th December 2018, notice was issued and on 10th January, 2019
time had been sought to file counter affidavit. There was therefore
sufficient time much before the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic
for the present Appellant to have filed its reply to the writ petition.
Therefore, the excuse that there was a COVID-19 pandemic and
therefore counter affidavit could not be filed is unacceptable.
6. Learned Single Judge has further noted that despite the
Respondent No.5 having been placed under suspension since 12th
September 2018, the disciplinary proceedings had not even been
initiated. No explanation was forthcoming for the delay. In the
circumstances, the learned Single Judge has while quashing the
suspension order directed reinstatement of Respondent No.5.
7. Having heard Mr. Samal, learned counsel for the Appellant, the
Court is not persuaded that any error has been committed by the
learned Single Judge in the facts and circumstances of the case.
There is in fact no valid explanation for neither initiating the
disciplinary proceedings for over four years nor even filing a reply
to the writ petition for over three years.
8. Mr. Samal then submits that although Respondent No.5 has been
reinstated as Lecturer, he is raising a claim to be appointed as
Principal In-charge. That is a separate cause of action which has no
bearing as far as the present case is concerned.
9. For the aforementioned reasons, the Court finds no grounds have
been made out to interfere with the impugned judgment of the
learned Single Judge.
10. The writ appeal is accordingly dismissed.
(Dr. S. Muralidhar)
Chief Justice
(G. Satapathy)
Judge
M. Panda
