State Of Odisha And Others vs Akshay Kumar Nayak
2023 Latest Caselaw 2500 Ori

                     IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
                                       W.A. No. 1432 of 2022

             State of Odisha and Others                  ....            Appellants
                                     Mr. Biplab Mohanty, Addl. Govt. Advocate
                                           -versus-
             Akshay Kumar Nayak                          ....           Respondent
                                                                             None
             CORAM:
             THE CHIEF JUSTICE
             JUSTICE G. SATAPATHY
                                           ORDER

Order No. 28.03.2023

01. 1. Admittedly, the Respondent was removed from service without actually holding a disciplinary proceeding, in terms of the mandatory provision in Rule 72(2) of Orissa Civil Services (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules. During the pendency of the writ petition, the Respondent attained the age of superannuation. The charge that he was unauthorizedly absent for five years was actually not established in an inquiry. In the circumstances, the learned Single Judge has held that his termination with effect from 7th June, 2008 to be bad in law.

2. Taking note of the fact that the Respondent did not render any service after 16th March, 2002, the learned Single Judge has declined to grant any financial benefit from that date till the date of superannuation. The question of reinstatement also did not arise. The only limited relief was that the Respondent should be paid his pension and other retrial benefits.

3. Learned counsel for the Appellants sought to rely on the judgments in Syndicate Bank v. General Secretary, Syndicate Bank Staff Association AIR 2000 SC 2198 and Aligarh Muslim University v. Mansoor Ali Khan AIR 2000 SC 2783, to urge that the punishment of removal from service was justified on account of the unauthorized absence of the Respondent for over five years.

4. The above submission overlooks the fact that the mandatory inquiry that was to be held prior to such removal was not held in the present case. In that view of the matter, the decision of the Supreme Court in Deokinandan Prasad v. The State of Bihar; AIR 1971 SC 1409 and of this Court in Kishori Dash v. State of Orissa and others (2008) 105 CLT 309, would apply.

5. This Court is unable to find any error having been committed by the learned Single Judge in passing the impugned order. The appeal is accordingly dismissed.

(Dr. S. Muralidhar) Chief Justice

(G. Satapathy) Judge Subhasmita