Orissa High Court
State Of Odisha And Others vs Raghunath Naik on 24 February, 2025
Bench: Arindam Sinha, M.S. Sahoo
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
WA No. 1228 of 2024
State of Odisha and others .... Appellants
Represented By Adv. -
Mr. B. Dash, Advocate
-versus-
Raghunath Naik .... Respondent
Represented By Adv.
Mr. P. K. Ray, Advocate
Mr. K.C.Dash, Advocate
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARINDAM SINHA,
ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.S. SAHOO
ORDER
24.02.2025
Order No. I.A. no. 3164 of 2024 and W.A. no. 1228 of 2024
03. 1. Mr. Dash, learned advocate, Additional Government Advocate
appears on behalf of applicant-appellants (State). He submits, the
appeal was preferred against judgment dated 29th September, 2023
made by the learned single Judge setting aside and quashing removal
order dated 28th January, 2011 and order dated 13th July, 2022 of
confirmation made by the appellate authority.
// 2 //
2. He submits, respondent was appointed as a sepoy in year 2006
on reliance of the caste certificate produced by him. It was
subsequently found, in year 2010 that the caste certificate was forged.
Departmental proceeding was initiated and he stood removed from
service as confirmed by the appellate authority. The learned single
Judge urged both on facts and in law to set aside and quash the orders
impugned in the writ petition.
3. There is substance in State's contention made before the
learned single Judge as well as here, in the appeal, to weigh with Court
in condoning reported delay of 165 days for preferring the appeal. He
submits, the appeal be admitted.
4. Mr. Ray, learned advocate appears on behalf of respondent and
submits, the learned single Judge made no error in making impugned
judgment. His client had filed for contempt, seeking enforcement of
the direction for reinstatement. The application was disposed of on
three months' time given to the employer. After expiry thereof, the
appeal has been filed to fraustrate his client's claim to reinstatement,
duly adjudicated. He submits further, there is no explanation for the
// 3 //
delay, when the employer had been represented in the contempt
proceeding, to thereafter file appeal, in which there is also no ground
of merit. The application and appeal be dismissed.
5. We are not impressed with cause shown in the application.
However, we perused impugned judgment dated 29 th September, 2023
to see whether cause for adjudication in appeal leaps to the eye. We
find, the learned single Judge discussed the controversy to be
genuineness of the document produced by respondent. It is a caste
certificate certifying he belongs to caste 'PANA'. Facts are also that
subsequently in year 2010 he produced current caste certificate. The
employer found it to be genuine.
6. The learned single Judge found there was bifurcation of the
tahsil. The Tahsildar, who deposed did not have knowledge about the
caste certificate issued in year 2006 as she had subsequently assumed
charge. It amounted to a finding based on no evidence. The learned
single Judge exercising writ jurisdiction interfered and set aside the
orders to direct reinstatement. There is also discussion of the
authorities relied upon by the parties. As such, applicant's conduct of
filing belated appeal to avoid rigor of contempt becomes apparent.
// 4 //
7. The employer having had got itself represented in the contempt
proceeding, thereafter seeking condonation of delay in preferring the
appeal is not a cause at all. We do not accept cause shown in the
application.
8. The application for condonation of delay is rejected and
dismissed. The appeal therefore, also stands dismissed.
(Arindam Sinha)
Acting Chief Justice
(M.S. Sahoo)
Judge
dutta
