Orissa High Court
State Of Odisha And Others vs Kailash Chandra Behera on 5 November, 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
W.A. No.794 of 2024
State of Odisha and others .... Appellants
Mr. Bimbisar Dash, AGA
-versus-
Kailash Chandra Behera .... Respondent
Mr. K. C. Sahu, Advocate
CORAM:
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
HON'BLE MISS JUSTICE SAVITRI RATHO
ORDER
Order No. 05.11.2024
07. This matter is taken up through Hybrid mode.
2. In the present intra-court appeal, the State of Odisha has put
to challenge an order passed by a learned Single Judge of this
Court dated 25.07.2023 in W.P.(C) No.2948 of 2020, whereby the
writ application filed by the respondent has been allowed with
certain observations.
3. The facts which are not in dispute are that the respondent
was initially engaged as Sikshya Sahayak on 20.11.2012 after
undergoing a recruitment process. On completion of three years of
uninterrupted service, he became a Junior Teacher with effect from
14.01.2016. Later, a proposal was sent to the District Project
Coordinator for regularization of six Junior Teachers including the
petitioner as regular (Assistant Teacher), in accordance with extant
provision. During the pendency of the said proposal, the petitioner
was arrested in a criminal case, registered for commission of
various offences punishable under the IPC including Section 302
thereof. When the respondent was in custody, a show-cause notice
was issued to him by the District Project Coordinator, RTE-SSA,
Puri (opposite party No.5) seeking his explanation on his
unauthorized absence. The petitioner submitted his explanation on
17.12.2019 wherein he disclosed about his arrest in connection
with the said police case. Without further notice or opportunity of
hearing, by an order dated 24.12.2019, the respondent was
disengaged from the post of Junior Teacher with immediate effect,
purportedly in accordance with Clause 10.5 of the terms and
conditions prescribed by the State Government in School and Mass
Education Department in the order dated 05.01.2019. The said
order dated 24.12.2019 was put to challenge by the respondent by
filing the aforesaid writ application. A counter affidavit was filed
in the writ proceeding justifying the petitioner's disengagement on
the ground that involvement in a criminal case constituted
misconduct and since a show-cause notice was issued, there was
no violation of principles of natural justice.
4. Learned Single Judge has quashed the order of termination
rejecting the contention that involvement in a criminal case itself
constitutes a misconduct in employment. Secondly, the respondent
was taken into custody on 08.10.2019 and was released on bail on
06.12.2019. While in custody, he was not in a position to inform
his superior authorities regarding his absence from duties. Thirdly,
learned Single Judge noticed that in the show-cause notice dated
16.11.2019, opposite party No.5 had asked the petitioner to show-
cause as to why he should not be disengaged from service for such
long unauthorized absence from 15.10.2019 till issuance of the
said notice. The respondent did submit his reply highlighting the
circumstance in which he was forced to remain absent from the
duties. Learned Single Judge has further noticed that the impugned
order of disengagement does not at all mention of the petitioner's
reply to the show-cause notice. Learned Single Judge has also
noticed Clause 10.5 of the aforesaid resolution dated 05.01.2019
which authorized the competent authority to disengage a Junior
Teacher (contractual) from service with a prior notice of 30 days, if
any condition of the contract was found to have been violated.
Learned Single Judge, after having noticed the circumstance that
the impugned order did not disclose any application of mind while
dealing with the respondent's reply, has quashed the impugned
order of disengagement dated 24.12.2019 with a direction to
reinstate the respondent in service forthwith, with all service
benefits. Learned Single Judge has however observed that the
respondent shall not be entitled to any financial benefits for the
period during which he did not render any service, though the said
period shall count towards his service notionally.
5. Assailing the impugned order, Mr. Bimbisar Dash, learned
Additional Government Advocate has submitted that since the
engagement of the respondent was on contractual basis, his
termination of engagement after giving him notice cannot be
faulted with. He submits that there has been no violation of
principles of natural justice. He has further submitted that the
appellants rightly decided to disengage the respondent because of
his involvement in a criminal case of grave nature.
6. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent
defending the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge
has submitted that apparently the respondent's disengagement is
because of his arrest in a criminal case which situation was beyond
his control. He has argued that apparently, in the background of
present set of facts, the respondent's implication in a criminal case
is solitary reason for his disengagement.
7. We have perused the impugned order passed by the learned
Single Judge as well as the office order dated 24.12.2019 passed
by the District Project Coordinator, Samagrashiksha, Puri. It is
apparent on reading of the order dated 24.12.2019 that
involvement of the respondent in a criminal case and his absence
from duty because of his arrest in the said criminal case is the only
reason for his disengagement. In such view of the matter, the
opinion formed by the learned Single Judge in the impugned
judgment cannot be said to be unreasonable requiring this Court's
interference in an intra-Court appeal. In our opinion, the decision
of the appellants to deprive the respondent of his livelihood for the
sole reason of his implication in a criminal case has been rightly
interfered with by the learned Single Judge.
8. Accordingly, we are not inclined to interfere with the
impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge.
9. This appeal is dismissed.
10. It goes without saying that it will be open for the competent
authority to proceed in accordance with law depending on the
outcome of the criminal case or a departmental action for a definite
misconduct against the respondent.
(Chakradhari Sharan Singh)
Chief Justice
(Savitri Ratho)
Judge
M. Panda
Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack
