Orissa High Court
Sabita Bag vs Collector-Cum-Dist on 20 August, 2025
Author: Sashikanta Mishra
Bench: Sashikanta Mishra
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
W.P.(C) No. 21658 of 2025
In the matter of an application under Articles 226 & 227 of
Constitution of India.
---------------
Sabita Bag ...... Petitioner
- Versus -
Collector-cum-Dist, Magistratte,
Rayagada and Ors. ....... Opp. Parties
Advocates appeared in the case through hybrid mode:
_________________________________________________________
For Petitioner : Mr. D.Sethi,
Advocate
For Opp. Parties : Mr. S.N. Pattnaik,
Addl. Government Advocate
Mrs. J.Tripathy,
Special Counsel for MGNREGS
matter
_________________________________________________________
CORAM:
JUSTICE SASHIKANTA MISHRA
JUDGMENT
20th August, 2025
SASHIKANTA MISHRA, J.
The petitioner, in the present writ application
seeks to challenge order dated 01.07.2025 passed by the
Director, Special Projects-cum-Appellate authority whereby
the appeal filed by the petitioner was rejected.
2. The facts of the case, briefly stated are that the
petitioner was working as Gram Rozgar Sevak in Seriguma
Gram Panchayat under K.Singhpur block in the district of
Rayagada having been engaged since 15.07.2013. While
working as such, a show-cause notice was issued to her by
the Collector on 06.04.2018 asking her to explain the
following irregularities:
1. Mis-appropriation of Govt. money through
manipulations in Bank accounts numbers of PMAY
beneficiaries
2. GEO tagging without case records
3. Suppression and misleading of facts to the authority
The petitioner submitted her reply to the show-cause
clarifying her stand to the effect that selection of
beneficiaries under the PMAY was not her responsibility.
Further, she was on strike at the time of the registration of
the beneficiaries and geo-tagging of the houses. The
Sarpanch of the Gram Panchayat asked her to hand over
her Mobile phone as the houses needed to be geo-tagged
and on good faith the petitioner handed over her mobile to
the Sarpanch using which the houses were geo-tagged. The
petitioner immediately brought such fact to the notice of the
PEO and subsequently she was also forced by the Sarpanch
to geo-tag beneficiaries for the second time. The Collector,
Rayagada vide order dated 31.05.2018 did not accept the
explanation so submitted and directed her disengagement.
The petitioner initially challenged such order before this
Court in W.P.(C). No. 10075 of 2018, which was disposed of
granting her liberty to prefer appeal before the appellate
authority. The petitioner accordingly preferred appeal which
was disposed of by order dated 01.07.2025, which is
impugned in the present writ application.
3. Heard Mr. D. Sethi, learned counsel for the petitioner and
Mr. S.N.Pattnaik, learned AGA for the State and Mrs.
J.R.Tripathy, learned Special Counsel.
4. Mr. Sethi would submit that the show-cause reply
submitted by the petitioner was not considered by the
Collector as well as the appellate authority. Further, the
appellate authority despite observing that the petitioner had
acted under duress did not accept her explanation and
rejected the appeal. The petitioner was not responsible for
registration of beneficiaries and geo-tagging of the houses as
she was on strike at the relevant time.
5. Learned State counsel submits that the Collector as well
as the appellate authority did not accept the explanation
submitted by the petitioner as inquiry conducted by the
BDO revealed otherwise.
6. Mrs. Tripathy, while adopting the arguments made by
Mr. Pattnaik, further submits that the inquiry revealed that
the petitioner was herself responsible for manipulation of
records to show the names of ineligible beneficiaries.
7. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and on going
through the impugned order, this Court finds that the
appellate authority has noted the facts of the case, the
specific allegations levelled against the petitioner as per the
show-cause notice as also the reply to such-show cause
submitted by the petitioner. After noting the above, the
appellate authority appears to have abruptly arrived at the
conclusion that the petitioner is guilty of the misconduct
alleged. There is no independent finding as regards the
veracity of the allegations. It is trite that the appellate
authority is required to record his subjective satisfaction as
regards the guilt or otherwise of the appellant before him. In
the instant case, the appellate authority has observed under
paragraph 7 as under :
"7. In reply to the Show Cause, the appellant submitted that the
beneficiary selection under PMAY was not her responsibility and
she was on strike while the beneficiaries were registered and the
houses were geo-tagged. She handed over the phone to the
Sarpanch through which the house were geotagged. She had
intimated about the irregularities regarding change of the name of
beneficiaries to the PEO concerned. However, she geotagged the
houses herself the second time under duress from the Sarpanch
concerned."
It is evident that there has been no independent application
of judicial mind by the appellate authority to the
explanation submitted by the petitioner vis-à-vis the
allegations levelled against her. The so-called inquiry
conducted by the AE and GPTA of the block at the instance
of the BDO has been referred to but then, there is nothing
on record to show that the petitioner was allowed to
participate in such inquiry or that she was granted
opportunity to have her say in the matter.
8. For the foregoing reasons therefore, this Court is of the
considered view that the impugned order cannot be said to
have been passed by complying with the principles of
natural justice. The principle of 'Audi alteram Partem'
appears to have been violated in the case inasmuch as the
report of the inquiry basing on which the appellate authority
has found the petitioner guilty was prepared and submitted
without granting any opportunity of hearing to her.
9. For the reasons indicated above, the impugned order
cannot be sustained in the eye of law.
10. In the result, the writ application is allowed. The
impugned order is set aside. The matter is remitted to the
Director, Special Projects-cum-appellate authority to hear
the appeal afresh. The appellate authority shall do well to
cause necessary inquiry so as to be subjectively satisfied as
regards veracity of the allegations of misconduct levelled
against the petitioner in the show cause notice. In doing so,
the appellate authority shall take note of the explanation
submitted by the petitioner to such allegations. The appeal
shall be finally disposed of after granting opportunity of
hearing to all concerned within eight weeks from the date of
production of certified copy of this order by the petitioner.
.................................
Sashikanta Mishra,
Judge
Deepak
