Orissa High Court
Manoj Kumar Samal vs State Of Odisha on 31 January, 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
F.A.O. NO.33 OF 2023
(From the order dated 12th January, 2023 passed by learned
State Education Tribunal, Odisha, Bhubaneswar in Misc.
Case No.36/2022)
Manoj Kumar Samal
and others ... Appellants
-versus-
State of Odisha
and others ... Respondents
Advocates appeared in the case through hybrid mode:
For Appellant : Mr.Kunal Ku. Swain,
Advocate.
-versus-
For Respondents : Mr.R.N.Mishra,
Addl. Govt. Advocate
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
CORAM:
JUSTICE SASHIKANTA MISHRA
JUDGMENT
31.1.2023.
Sashikanta Mishra,J. The Appellants have filed this appeal
questioning the correctness of order dated 12th
January, 2023 passed by learned Presiding Officer,
State Education Tribunal, Bhubaneswar in M.C.
No.36/2022 arising out of G.I.A. Case No.163/2022
whereby their prayer for grant of stay operation of the
impugned enquiry reports dated 27th May, 2022 and
27th September, 2022 was rejected.
2. The brief facts, relevant only for deciding the
present appeal are that the Appellants are teaching
staff of Sabitridevi Sanskrit Mahavidyalaya,
Kampagarh in the district of Jajpur being appointed
on different dates after facing due process of selection.
The College in question was notified to receive block
grant from the State Government as per the Grant-in-
Aid Order, 2009. Upon verification of records at the
appropriate levels, the State Government vide order
dated 26th September, 2019 granted approval to their
appointments. Since then, they have been receiving
block grant in terms of the G.I.A Order, 2009. While
the matter stood thus, an enquiry was conducted by
the Regional Director, Higher Education Department,
Bhubaneswar on the basis of an anonymous allegation
against the Appellants. No notice of the enquiry was
given to them and as such they remained in the dark.
In the meantime, the College in question was granted
permanent recognition for the academic Session 2005-
06. The Regional Director submitted report of his
enquiry on 27th May, 2022 holding that the educational
agency had resorted to forgery, manipulation and
preparation of documents to provide Grant-in-Aid to
the employees, who were appointed after 2008-09. The
enquiry report was challenged before this Court in
W.P.(C) No.19498/2022 and by order dated 10th
August, 2022, this Court directed that the enquiry
report shall not be given effect to. During pendency of
the said Writ Petition one Krushna Chandra Sahu, an
outsider, allegedly acting at the behest of the Ex-
Secretary of the Governing Body of the College
approached the Lokayukta, Odisha in L.Y. Case
No.154/2022 in which notice was directed to be issued
by order dated 29th April, 2022. However, a joint
enquiry committee was constituted by the Regional
Director of Education to conduct enquiry into the
matter. The Appellants were not called upon to
participate in the said enquiry. The enquiry report was
submitted on 27th September, 2022 with
recommendation to withdraw grant-in-aid and
direction to the President of the Governing Body to
take disciplinary action against the Appellants. The
Appellants had therefore, approached this Court in
W.P.(C) No.26488/2022 and by order dated 5th
December, 2022 the above Writ Petition as well as
W.P.(C) No.19498/2022 were disposed of granting
liberty to the Appellants to pursue their remedy under
Section 24-B of the Odisha Education Act. Pursuant to
such direction, the Appellants have approached the
Tribunal in G.I.A. Case No.163/2022 challenging both
the enquiry reports.
3. During pendency of the GIA case, the Appellants
moved an application for grant of stay operation of the
impugned enquiry reports. Learned Tribunal however,
held that since no concrete action has yet been taken
against the Appellants, it would not be appropriate in
the interest of justice to grant stay and thus the
petition was rejected by the order, impugned in the
present appeal.
4. Heard Mr. Kunal Ku. Swain, learned counsel for the
Petitioner and Mr. R.N.Mishra, learned Addl.
Government Advocate for the State.
5. Mr. Swain argues that if the recommendations
made in the enquiry report are acted upon, the same
would adversely affect the Appellants and in the
process, the original application itself would become
infructuous. He further contends that the enquiry
having been conducted behind the back of the
Appellants is entirely contrary to law. The second
enquiry was conducted without any positive direction
by the Lokayukta, who had only issued notice.
Accordingly to Mr. Swain, the learned Tribunal has not
appreciated the matter in the proper perspective for
which, the impugned order warrants interference.
6. Per contra, Mr. R.N. Mishra argues that the
Appellants have approached this Court only on
apprehension as no action has yet been taken basing
on the enquiry reports in question. He further submits
that the joint enquiry was conducted as directed by the
Lokayukta. Mr.Mishra also contends that the
Appellants, being found to have been party to
manipulation of documents and records at the relevant
time only to obtain benefit of block grant are not
entitled to any kind of relief at this stage.
7. I have carefully considered the rival contentions
noted above and have given my anxious consideration
to the same. I have also perused the materials on
record. It is prima facie available to be seen that the
Appellants were not heard in both the enquiries and
yet the recommendations made in the enquiry reports
are adverse to their interest. Of course, the legality of
the enquiry reports is a matter to be decided by the
Tribunal in the original application, but it would
suffice to note that the Appellants have at least an
arguable case to raise before the Tribunal. It must be
kept in mind that on an earlier occasion, this Court
had granted an interim order that the enquiry report
dated 27th May, 2022 shall not be given effect to till
the next date (order dated 10th August, 2022 passed in
W.P.(C) No.19498/2022). Much argument has been
made as to whether the Lokayukta issued any specific
order directing conduct of enquiry. This Court does not
intend to delve into such aspect as the same being a
factual issue, is to be decided by the Tribunal in the
original application. However, since the reports entail
adverse consequences for the Appellants it would be in
the interest of justice to keep the same in abeyance till
the legality thereof is decided by the Tribunal in the
original application. This is a case where not granting
stay would cause more harm to the Appellants than
the State as in the event the Tribunal is not finally
inclined to grant the main relief, it would be open to
the State to take necessary follow-up action based on
the enquiry reports. On the other hand, one
anomalous situation would ensue if the
recommendations in the enquiry reports were acted
upon while the enquiry reports being under challenge
are ultimately held to be illegal by the Tribunal in the
main case.
8. For the foregoing reasons therefore, this Court is
persuaded to hold that the impugned order deserves to
be interfered with. Resultantly, the impugned order is
set aside. It is directed that operation of the enquiry
reports dated 27th May,2022 and 27th September, 2022
shall remain stayed till disposal of the G.I.A. Case
No.163/2022. Further, the Tribunal is directed to
make effort to dispose of the G.I.A. case as early as
possible preferably, within a period of four months
from the date of communication of this order or on
production of certified copy thereof by the Appellants.
9. The FAO is accordingly, disposed of.
..................................
(Sashikanta Mishra)
Judge
Ashok Kumar Behera
FAONo.33/2023 Page 10 of
