Trimul Kumar Reddy vs State Of Odisha And Others
2023 Latest Caselaw 2042 Ori

Citation : 2023 Latest Caselaw 2042 Ori
Judgement Date : 10 March, 2023

Orissa High Court

Trimul Kumar Reddy vs State Of Odisha And Others on 10 March, 2023

           IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
                             W.P.(C) No.6342 of 2023
                                      and
                              I.A. No.2790 of 2023

                               (Through Hybrid mode)

      Trimul Kumar Reddy                              ....                      Petitioner

                                           -versus-
      State of Odisha and others                      ....              Opposite Parties


      Advocates appeared in this case:

      For petitioner                : Mr. D. Tripathy. Advocate

      For opposite parties          : Mr. A. K. Sharma, AGA
                                       Mr. M. K. Dash, Advocate
                                       Ms. P. Naidu, Advocate
      CORAM:
      JUSTICE ARINDAM SINHA
      JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR MISHRA

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                     Date of hearing and Judgment: 10.03.2023
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

ARINDAM SINHA, J.

1. Mr. Tripathy, learned advocate appears on behalf of

petitioner and submits, his client was appointed, under the scheme,

as executive officer without remuneration. By impugned order dated

// 2 //

25th January, 2023 the Commissioner illegally removed him. He

draws attention to sections 42(8), 52, 54, 22 and 28 in Odisha Hindu

Religious Endowments Act, 1951. He seeks interference.

2. We, in our order dated 1st March, 2023 had made

observation for notice of the parties. Reproduced below is paragraph

3 from said order.

"3. We are clear in our mind there is a scheme, pursuant to which petitioner was appointed as executive officer without remuneration. As such, he is not covered by section 52 or 54. We have perused impugned order. It does not disclose any of the reasons given in section 28(1)."

3. Mr. Sharma, learned advocate, Additional Government

Advocate appears on behalf of State and files hard copy of the

counter. He submits, the writ petition is not maintainable on

availability of alternative statutory remedy. Without prejudice he

submits, under section 56, State has administrative control over the

religious institution. The scheme was made by order dated 29th

November, 1977 and published by authority in the Odisha Gazette on

20th January, 1978. Petitioner has duly been removed as per

// 3 //

provision in clause 15(b) in the scheme. There should not be

interference.

4. Ms. Naidu, learned advocate appears on behalf of the

Commissioner and submits, impugned order was duly made on the

Commissioner having been moved by the Sebayats, who had

complained against petitioner. On query from Court she submits,

petitioner having been relieved by impugned order means he was

removed. There should not be interference.

5. Mr. Dash, learned advocate appears on behalf of the

applicants (interveners). He submits, his clients are the Sebayats.

They had complained to the Commissioner, to bring to notice

mismanagement by petitioner acting as Executive Officer. Action

taken in removing him was necessary. He too relies on the scheme

and submits, under sub-clause(b) in clause 15, the Commissioner has

power to remove an Executive Officer such as petitioner. The power

has duly been exercised. His clients be added as parties and there

should not be interference.

6. Sub-section(8) in section 42 is reproduced below.

// 4 //

"(8) An Executive Officer appointed in pursuance of a scheme framed under this section may be removed by the appointing authority for all or any of the reasons specified in section 28 and an appeal against the order of removal shall lie to the State Government, if preferred within thirty days from the date of the order. "

(emphasis supplied)

Sub clauses (a) and (b) under clause 15 of the scheme are reproduced

below.

"15.(a) The Executive Officer shall be appointed by the Commissioner.

(b) The Commissioner may remove, suspend, dismiss or fine or reduce, disallow payment of monthly salary of the Executive Officer for neglect of duty, breach of trust, incapacity, misconduct and disobedience of lawful orders."

(emphasis supplied )

7. Sub-clause(b) under clause 15 in the scheme empowers the

Commissioner to, inter alia, remove the Executive Officer for neglect

of duty, breach of trust, incapacity, misconduct and disobedience of

lawful orders. None of these have been given as a ground in

impugned order. Said order says, petitioner acting as Executive

// 5 //

Officer stands relieved. We have obtained clarification from Ms.

Naidu that in effect petitioner, by being relieved, was removed. We

find from impugned order that the Sub-Collector was appointed in

the interim till regular Executive Officer is appointed. This also

makes it clear that petitioner on being relieved, was removed. We

reproduce below few paragraphs from impugned order.

"Whereas in the meantime more than three years have elapsed;

Whereas it is felt expedient in the interest of the deity and the institution to relieve Sri Reddy from his duties and responsibilities as the Executive Officer of the institution and to appoint an Administrative Officer of the locality as the Executive Officer, as suggested by the Sebayats (Archaks) and the Collector-cum-District Magistrate, Ganjam till a regular Executive Officer is appointed, only to ensure proper management of the affairs of the deity institution;

Sri Prasana Ku. Patra, O.A.S, Sub-Collector, Chhatrapur who is Hindu by religion and having no disqualification as enlisted in Section 29 of the OHRE Act, 1951 is hereby appointed as the Executive Officer of the deity institution until a regular Executive Officer is appointed."

// 6 //

(emphasis supplied)

8. Section 42 empowers the Assistant Commissioner or the

Deputy Commissioner, as the case may be, to proceed and frame a

scheme in the manner provided thereunder. We have already referred

to sub-section (8) in the section, for removal of an Executive Officer

appointed under a scheme framed. We are clear in our minds that

provisions in the scheme, framed pursuant to section 42, cannot

override a provision by a sub-section thereunder. It follows that the

Commissioner was required to give reasons for removal of petitioner

acting as Executive Officer, to be one or all of the five reasons given

under section 28. Not only none from those reasons were given but

also no reason, as required by sub-clause(b) in clause 15 of the

scheme, was given. In that view of things, impugned order cannot be

sustained. Interference is necessary inspite of availability of

alternative statutory remedy since, an unreasoned order is liable to

and should be set aside. It is set aside and quashed.