Surabala Bohidar vs State Of Odisha And Another
2023 Latest Caselaw 5262 Ori

                  IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

                               W.P.(C) No.14203 of 2023
                 Surabala Bohidar                     ....          Petitioners
                                                Mr.Sidheswar Mallik, Advocate

                                            -versus-

                 State of Odisha and another           ....      Opposite Parties
                                                            Mr.A.Behera, A.S.C.
                                         CORAM:

                            JUSTICE A.K. MOHAPATRA

Order No.                                   ORDER
                                          05.05.2023
    01.     1.      This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual
            /Physical Mode).

2. Heard learned counsel for the Petitioner as well as learned Additional Standing Counsel. Perused the Writ Petition as well as the documents annexed thereto.

3. The present Writ Petition has been filed with the following prayer :

"Under the above stated facts and circumstances, it is therefore prayed that this Hon'ble Court may graciously be pleased to admit this Writ Petition and after hearing both parties, a writ in nature of mandamus may be issued by directing the Opposite Parties not to dismiss her from Government service as contemplated in Notice dated 28.04.2023 (Annexure-4) or in alternative to pay her the subsistence allowance till final disposal of her appeal which is pending before this Hon'ble Court in CRLA No.170 of 2013;

And pass any other order/orders, direction/directions as this Hon'ble Court deems just, fit, equitable and proper in the facts and circumstances of the present case in order to give complete reliefs;"

// 2 //

4. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the Petitioner that the Petitioner has approached this Court being aggrieved by issuance of a notice by the authority i.e., Collector, Bolangir after her conviction in a criminal trial by the Special Judge, Vigilance, Bolangir in C.T.R.No.04 of 2016 vide judgment dated 31.01.2023. He further submitted that the Petitioner has already preferred an appeal bearing CRLA No.170 of 2023 before this Court challenging the order passed by the learned Vigilance Judge, Bolangir. Learned counsel for the Petitioner further submitted that during pendency of the aforesaid CRLA the authority has issued notice dated 28.04.2023 proposing to impose punishment on the Petitioner. Accordingly, the Petitioner has approached this Court challenging such notice.

5. Learned Additional Standing Counsel appearing for the State- Opposite Parties on the other hand submitted that the present Writ Petition is not maintainable and the same is premature. He further contended that even a notice has been issued against the Petitioner, which is under the law after conviction of the Petitioner in a criminal case. In such view of the matter, learned Additional Standing Counsel submitted that the present Writ Petition is premature and the same is liable to be dismissed.

6. Considering the submissions made by the learned counsel for the respective parties and keeping in view the factual background of the case, this Court is of the view that this is premature at this stage. The validity of such notice can be challenged in the proceeding that will take place pursuant to such notice and not at this stage. However, while declining to interfere with the impugned notice, this Court directs that it is open for the authority while imposing punishment refer the judgment relied upon by the Petitioner in the case of State of Madhya Pradesh & others-v.-Hazarilal reported in (2008) 3 // 3 //

Supreme Court Cases 273 and pass necessary orders in accordance with law.

7. With the aforesaid observation/direction the Writ Petition stands disposed of.

RKS                                      ( A.K. Mohapatra )
                                                Judge