Orissa High Court
Praphulla Kumar Naik vs Director on 28 November, 2023
Author: G. Satapathy
Bench: G. Satapathy
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
WPC NO.7231 of 2010
(In the matter of application under Articles 226 and
227 of the Constitution of India).
Praphulla Kumar Naik ... Petitioner
-versus-
Director, Secondary ... Opposite Parties
Education, Orissa,
Bhubaneswar and Others
For Petitioner : Mr. B.P. Das, Advocate
For Opposite Parties : Mr. M.K. Khuntia, AGA
CORAM:
JUSTICE G. SATAPATHY
DATE OF HEARING :28.11.2023
DATE OF JUDGMENT :28.11.2023
G. Satapathy, J.
1. The challenge of the petitioner in this writ is
to the order of his suspension dated 22.06.2004
issued by OPNo.3 and the order passed on
18.03.2010 by Presiding Officer, State Education
Tribunal (SET) in Appeal No.21/2006 declining to
interfere with the order of suspension.
2. Facts in precise are that the petitioner being
a Trained Arts Graduate was selected by OPNo.3 as
Trained Graduate Teacher (TGT). The petitioner,
accordingly, joined as Senior most TGT on
01.07.1993 in Srikrishna High School, Rajpur
(hereinafter referred to as "the School") and
discharged the duties of HM(I/C) in terms of Govt.
direction dated 22.06.1989, but the School became
an Aided Educational Institution w.e.f. 01.01.2004
vide SRO No.60/2004 dated 05.02.2004. The
petitioner while continuing as such, all on a sudden was
served with a letter of Management Committee (MC) in
MC No.04/3 dated 26.05.2004 to handover the charge
of the post of HM to another junior teacher Prem Chand
Oram by 16.06.2004 without assigning any reason and,
being aggrieved, the petitioner approached SET in
Appeal No.04/05, wherein he came to know that he has
been placed under suspension w.e.f. 22.06.2004
without any approval of Inspector of Schools in terms
of Rule-21(b) of the Orissa Education (Recruitment and
Conditions of Service of Teachers and Members of the
Staff of Aided Educational Institutions) Rules, 1974 (in
short "the Rules"). It is also stated by the petitioner in
the writ that in fact, no reason was assigned in the
order of suspension to indicate as to why he was put
under suspension nor any explanation was called for
from him in this regard. The petitioner, thereafter,
unsuccessfully challenged his order of suspension
before SET in Appeal No.21 of 2006 which according to
him was disposed of in ignorance of provision of Rule-
21(b) of the Rules and, thereby, such order being
unsustainable in the eye of law is also liable to be set
aside.
3. In response to the notice of writ, OPNo.2
has filed counter supported with an affidavit denying
all the allegations made in the writ against Ops by
interalia averring that the appointment of the
petitioner was approved as Assistant Teacher for the
purpose of receiving Grant-In-Aid (GIA) vide Memo
No.873 dated 05.02.2005 (Annexure-E/2) of the
office of OPNo.2. In his counter affidavit, while not
disputing about the suspension of the petitioner and
status of the School as a Govt. Aided School w.e.f.
01.01.2004, OPNo.2 has averred that an explanation
was called for from the petitioner on certain alleged
points by the MC on 05.04.2004 and, thereafter,
being dissatisfied with the explanation of the
petitioner, OPNo.3 had issued his suspension order
under Annexure-9, but the petitioner having
unsuccessfully challenged his suspension order before
SET, the present writ merits no consideration. In
response to the counter affidavit, the petitioner has
filed his rejoinder affidavit by reiterating the
averments of the writ.
4. Heard Mr. B.P. Das, learned counsel for the
petitioner and Mr. M.K. Khuntia, learned AGA in the
matter and perused the record. Mr. Khuntia by
additionally producing the original records in
connection with the matter of the petitioner, submits
that the suspension order as issued by OPNo.3
against the petitioner under Annexure-9 having
attained finality in the departmental proceeding and
the petitioner having already reinstated to the service
with minor penalties, the present writ petition has
been rendered infructuous in view of the further fact
that the petitioner after accepting the penalty has
already joined service w.e.f. 10.12.2015.
5. On a plain glance of the averments taken in
the writ, it appears to the Court that the petitioner
has challenged his suspension order under Annexure-
9 purely on the ground of want of approval by
Inspector of Schools as required under the proviso to
Rule-21(2)(b) of the Rules, but the record produced
by the learned AGA discloses that the District
Education Officer (DEO) vide his Office Order No.6788
dated 01.08.2016 has approved the order of
suspension of the petitioner by treating the period as
such. Besides, the OPNo.3 vide Office Order No.66
dated 07.12.2015 has reinstated the petitioner in
service w.e.f. 08.12.2015 by communicating the
decision of the Managing Committee and the
petitioner was accordingly warned by the committee
not to repeat such type of mistake or irregularities in
future. It is, therefore, very clear that the
departmental proceeding has already been finalized
and pursuant to such decision in the departmental
proceeding, the petitioner has also joined in the post
w.e.f. 10.12.2015. Even on merits, it appears from
Annexure-E/2 to the counter affidavit of OPNo.2
which was not denied by the petitioner in his
rejoinder affidavit that the Inspector of Schools,
Sundargarh Circle vide his Office Order No.873 dated
05.02.2005 has approved the post of the petitioner to
become eligible to get Block Grant @ Rs.40% per
month w.e.f. 01.01.2004, but since this order was
admittedly issued on 05.02.2005, the petitioner's
suspension under Annexure-9 being issued on
22.06.2004 cannot be held to be illegal for want of
approval in terms of Rule-21(2)(b) of the Rules
inasmuch as at that time of issuance of the
suspension order against the petitioner, he was
considered to be un-aided private employee of the
School and, therefore, the suspension order issued by
the Managing Committee cannot be questioned in
terms of Rule-21(b) of the Rules notwithstanding to
the fact that the post of the petitioner was approved
for Block Grant w.e.f. 01.01.2004. Additionally, the
order of suspension has already been regularized by
approval of the authority in terms of the order passed
by the DEO on 01.08.2016. Further, Letter No.4025
dated 08.02.2021 of Deputy Director (NGS) to DEO,
Sundargarh makes it very clear that the DEO was
authorized to approve notionally the appointment of
petitioner from 01.01.2004 up to 09.12.2015 with
actual financial benefits w.e.f. 10.12.2015 and,
accordingly, the service of the petitioner was already
regularized.
6. On a careful conspectus of the averments
taken in the writ petition and on going through the
documents as annexed thereto as well as the
documents produced by the learned AGA today, there
remains no dispute about finalization of the
departmental proceeding of the petitioner and
approval of his suspension by the authority concerned
in terms of Rule-21(b) of the Rules necessitating no
interference by this Court in exercise of extraordinary
writ jurisdiction. Hence, it is ordered.
7. In the result, the writ petition stands
dismissed being devoid of merit on contest, but in the
circumstance, there is no order as to costs. The
record as produced by the learned AGA be returned
back to him on proper acknowledgment after
retaining a photocopy of the same.
(G. Satapathy)
Judge
Orissa High Court, Cuttack,
Dated the 28th of November, 2023/Subhasmita
Location: High Court of Orissa
