Pradeepta Kumar Swain vs State Of Odisha & Others
2023 Latest Caselaw 10085 Ori

           IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
                        WP(C) (OA) No.1398 of 2019

        Pradeepta Kumar Swain
                                          ....                  Petitioner
                                                Mr. M.K. Sahoo, Advocate
                               -versus-
        State of Odisha & Others
                                  ....                    Opposite Parties
                                                Mr. R.N. Mishra, Advocate

                             CORAM:
               JUSTICE BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY
                                         ORDER

25.08.2023 Order No.

6. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual/Physical) Mode.

2. Heard learned counsel appearing for the Parties.

3. The Petitioner has filed the present Writ Petition challenging the rejection of his claim for reengagement vide order dated 19.01.2019 so passed by Opposite Party No.4 under Annexure-10 as well as the order of termination issued by Opposite Party No.3 on 28.11.2015 under Annexure-6.

4. Learned counsel for the Petitioner contended that the Petitioner was initially engaged as a Sikshya Sahayak and subsequently was absorbed as Junior Teacher. While so continuing as Junior Teacher, because of his involvement in a criminal case and for remaining in custody for more than 48 hours, he was straight away // 2 //

terminated from his service vide order dated 28.11.2015 under Annexure-6 of Opposite Party No.3.

4.1. It is contended that since the Petitioner in the meantime was acquitted from the criminal charges vide judgment dated 27.11.2018 under Annexure-8, after his acquittal, Petitioner moved an application before Opposite Party No.3 to reinstate him in service.

4.2. It is contended that since the Petitioner has been acquitted from the charges in the criminal proceeding that being the basis of his termination, Opposite Party No.3 should have taken a decision on the same. But prior to taking such a decision by Opposite Party No.3, Opposite Party No.4 vide order at Annexure-10 rejected the claim without assigning any justifiable reason.

4.3. It is accordingly contended that the order at Annexure-10 as well as the order of termination passed under Annexure-6 are not sustainable in the eye of law.

4.4. In support of his aforesaid submission, learned counsel for the Petitioner relied on the decision of this Court so passed in W.P.(C) No.9916 of 2020 and WPC(OAS) No.12 of 2018.

4.5. Learned counsel for the Petitioner also relied on the guideline/circular issued by the Government in the Department of School and Mass Education on 17.06.2017 vide Annexure-15.

// 3 //

5. Mr. Mishra, learned Addl. Government Advocate on the other hand made his submission basing on the stand taken in the counter so filed by Opposite Party Nos.1 to 4. It is contended that since the Petitioner was implicated in a case under Section 354 of the I.P.C and remained in custody for more than 48 hours, the Petitioner being not a regular teacher was terminated from his service by Opposite Party No.3 vide order dated 28.11.2015. Though learned Addl. Government Advocate does not dispute that the Petitioner has been acquitted in the criminal case, but contended that taking into account the allegation made against the Petitioner, who happen to a Teacher, the Petitioner is not eligible for his reinstatement.

6. Having heard learned counsel for the Parties and after going through the materials available on record, it is found that the Petitioner because of his implication in a criminal case and for remaining in custody for more than 48 hours, was straight away terminated from his service vide order at Annexure-6. Since the Petitioner has been acquitted in the criminal case by a competent court of law, Opposite Party No.3 should have taken a decision on his own without asking Opposite Party No.4 to make any recommendation.

7. Since the Petitioner was terminated by Opposite Party No.3 vide order under Annexure-6, Opposite Party No.3 is competent to take a decision on his reinstatement. Since in the present case the claim of the Petitioner for

// 4 //

his reinstatement was rejected by Opposite Party No.4 with a communication to Opposite Party No.3 vide Annexure-10, the said order is not sustainable in the eye of law. The same is accordingly quashed. While quashing the same, this Court remits the matter to Opposite Party No.3 to take a decision on the claim of the Petitioner for his reinstatement as made in Annexure-7 within a period of two (2) months from the date of receipt of this order. Opposite Party No.3 is directed to provide a personal hearing to the Petitioner and Petitioner if so like can produce the orders passed by this Court which is being relied on by the learned counsel for the Petitioner, before the Opposite Party No.3 for its consideration.

8. With the aforesaid observations and directions, the Writ Petition stands disposed of.

(Biraja Prasanna Satapathy) Judge

Subrat

Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: SUBRAT KUMAR BARIK Reason: ..

Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACK Date: 28-Aug-2023 17:55:19