Orissa High Court
Sudhir Kumar Rout vs State Of Odisha & Others ... Opposite ... on 4 July, 2025
Author: Sashikanta Mishra
Bench: Sashikanta Mishra
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
W.P.(C) No.7203 of 2025
(Application under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of
India)
Sudhir Kumar Rout ... Petitioner
-versus-
State of Odisha & others ... Opposite Parties
Advocates appeared in the case through hybrid mode:
For Petitioner : Mr.Sameer Kumar Das,
Advocate
Mr.P.K.Behera, Advocate.
-versus-
For Opposite Party
Nos.1 to 3
: Mr. S.N.Patnaik, A.G.A.
For Opposite Party : None
No.4
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
CORAM:
JUSTICE SASHIKANTA MISHRA
JUDGMENT
04.7.2025.
Sashikanta Mishra,J. The Petitioner seeks to challenge the
order dated 23.1.2025 passed by Sub-Collector,
Jajpur-cum-President, Governing Body of Abhimanyu
Samant Singhar (Degree) College, Balia (herein after,
the College), whereby he was placed under suspension
pending drawl of disciplinary proceeding against him
for negligence in Government duty as also for
abscondance.
2. Shorn of unnecessary details, the facts of the case
are that the Petitioner was appointed as a Lecturer in
History by the Governing Body of the College on
22.4.1992 and joined as such on 27.4.1992. The
appointment of the Petitioner was approved by the
Government. The College was bifurcated into +2 and
+3 wings pursuant to order dtd.8.4.2016 passed by
this Court in W.P.(C) No.22530/2012. The Petitioner,
being the senior-most teaching staff was approved as
Principal-in-charge of the College by order dated
12.1.2017 of the Director of Higher Education. Again
on 02.8.2019, the Petitioner was approved as
Principal-in-charge-cum-Secretary of the Degree
College in supersession of the earlier order. On
23.12.2024, the State Government issued a
Notification exercising power under Section 7(6) of the
Odisha Education Act, 1969, inter alia, dissolving the
Governing bodies of all Non-Government Aided Degree
Colleges and directing the Sub-Collector of the Sub-
Division concerned to temporarily act as President of
the Governing Body until further orders. In the
meantime, a complaint was lodged by a girl student of
the College alleging misbehavior by a Lecturer. An
F.I.R. being filed also against the Petitioner, he
appeared before the concerned Court and was released
on bail. The Sub-Collector however, passed the
impugned order on 23.1.2025 placing him under
suspension. It is stated that such order is entirely
without jurisdiction as the Sub-Collector, in view of the
settled position of law, cannot take any disciplinary
action against an employee of the College, a power
available only to the Governing Body as per Rule 21 of
the Odisha Education (Recruitment and conditions of
Service of Teachers and Members of the Staff of Aided
Educational Institutions) Rules, 1974 (for short "1974
Rules"). The Sub-Collector cannot function as the
disciplinary authority in the absence of the Governing
Body. Citing the above facts, the Petitioner has
approached this Court with the following prayer;
"Under the above circumstances, it is
therefore humbly prayed that the Hon'ble
Court be graciously pleased to quash the
office order no. 1058 dtd: 23.01.2025 of
the Sub-Collector, Jajpur (Opp. Party No.3)
under Annexure-8 as it is without
jurisdiction and authority and in clear
violation of Rule-21 of the 1974 Rules and
the judgments of this Hon'ble Court in
W.P.(C) No. 34453 of 2021 disposed of on
03.01.2024 (Baijayanti Nayak Vs. State of
Odisha and others) and Sri Satya Sai Seva
Organization and another Vs. State of
Odisha and others, reported in (2008) 2
OLR-432;
And/or pass any other writ/writs,
order/orders/direction/directions in the
fitness of the case.
And for this act of kindness as in duty
bound the petitioner shall ever pray."
3. Counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the
State-Opp. Party No.1. It is stated that the incident
arising out of the complaint lodged by a +3 final year
girl student came to the knowledge of the Opp.Party
No.1 to the effect that she had been molested by one
Bidyadhar Dhal, Lecturer of the said College, and the
Petitioner being the Principal had protected said
Bidyadhar Dhal. As such, an F.I.R. was lodged by the
victim before Ramachandrapur Police Station. Having
regard to the above facts, the Special Secretary of the
Department requested the Regional Director of
Education to cause an inquiry. An inquiry was
conducted following the procedure laid down under
The Sexual Harassment of Women at Work Place
(Prevention, Prohibition and Redressal Act) 2013. In
the said inquiry, it was ascertained that the victim was
sexually harassed on 06.1.2025 during conduct of
Physics practical examination by Bidyadhar Dhal, a
Lecturer. Though the matter was intimated to the
Principal i.e. the present Petitioner over phone, the
victim could not meet him but he instructed another
faculty member to mediate and settle the issue by
approaching the victim with assurance of grant of good
marks in the ensuing semester examination. The
Petitioner also asked the faculty member to prevent the
victim from lodging any police complaint against the
accused Lecturer. The victim however did not accept
such request for which the Petitioner did not allow her
to appear in the examination on 15.1.2025. She
therefore wrote the examination under police
protection. The matter having gained adverse publicity
in the print and social media, the petitioner remained
on leave from 18.1.2025 on the ground of his wife's
illness. It thus came to light that the Petitioner, instead
of working for the interest of girl students acted in
assistance of the accused lecturer and tried to
suppress the matter by not taking any action against
him. Moreover, the victim was not given any
opportunity of hearing, rather she was threatened and
allured not to report the matter to the authority. The
inquiry committee therefore, suggested to draw
proceeding against the Petitioner for taking exemplary
action against him. Under such circumstances, the
Sub-Collector, who was appointed temporarily to work
as President of the Government Body, vide Notification
dated 23.12.2024 issued the impugned order
suspending the Petitioner from duty. It is further
stated that the Sub-Collector has the authority to take
disciplinary action under Rule 21 of the 1974 Rules.
The order of suspension was an administrative step to
contain the growing law and order situation.
4. The Petitioner filed a rejoinder reiterating the
averments made in the Writ Petition. It is stated that
he is in no way involved in the sexual harassment
matter. Moreover, he has been released on bail by the
competent court. He was unnecessarily dragged into
the criminal case. The allegation that he did not take
appropriate action is completely false and baseless and
the inquiry report cannot be accepted as the same was
conducted behind his back. The Petitioner could not
have taken any action against a co-lecturer in the
absence of the Governing Body. It is also stated that
Notification dated 23.12.2024 has no application as
per the ratio decided by this Court in the case of Sri
Satya Sai Seva Organization and another Vs.
State of Odisha and others, (2008) 2 OLR-432 and
for the stipulation contained in the Notification itself
that it would not apply to a College of which any case
relating to Governing Body is sub-judice. At the
relevant time W.P.(C) No.39349/2023 filed by one
Basanta Kumar Jena challenging the nomination of
Sub-Collector as President on an earlier occasion was
pending. Said Writ Petition was ultimately disposed of
on 22.1.2025 by quashing the nomination of the Sub-
Collector to act as President with further direction to
the Government to take decision on the
recommendation of the Collector, Jajpur for
reconstitution of the Governing Body.
5. Heard Mr. S.K.Das, learned counsel for the
Petitioner and Mr. S.N.Patnaik, learned A.G.A. for the
State.
6. Mr. Das assails the impugned order by
submitting that it is no longer res integra that the
Sub-Collector nominated to act as President of the
Governing Body has no power to act as the Governing
Body itself, which is the disciplinary authority. The
College in question has no Governing Body. The
Collector, Jajpur recommended three names but
instead of acting upon the same, the State Government
nominated the Sub-Collector, Jajpur as President by
order dtd.22.11.2023. Said order was set aside by a co-
ordinate Bench (W.P.(C) No.39349/2023). No further
action has been taken by the Government pursuant to
such order. Mr.Das therefore, argues that the Sub-
Collector is no longer the President of the Governing
Body. As regards the Government Notification
dtd.23.12.2024, Mr. Das would argue that the same is
not applicable in the present case. It specifies that the
institutions of which cases relating to Governing Body
are sub-judice are not covered by the Notification.
Admittedly, W.P.(C) No.39349/2023 was pending as on
23.12.2024. Ultimately, the appointment of the Sub-
Collector as President being set aside, he had no
authority as on 23.1.2025 to issue the impugned
order. Mr. Das however, fairly admits that as per Rule
21(1) of the 1974 Rules, the Director himself can
initiate disciplinary proceeding or impose any penalty
on an employee in the event there is no Governing
Body or the Governing Body neglects to do so. In the
instant case, the Director has not placed the Petitioner
under suspension. Therefore, the order of the Sub-
Collector is wholly without jurisdiction. Mr. Das has
cited the following judgments to buttress his
contentions;
"(1) Sri Satya Sai Seva Organization and
another Vs. State of Odisha and others,
reported in (2008) 2 OLR-432;
(2) Smt. Kamalini Dhal Vs. State of
Odisha and others passed in W.P.(C) No.
17174 of 2015 disposed of on 23.02.2016;
(3) Dr. Uttam Kumar Rout Vs. State of
Odisha and others passed in W.P.(C)
No.7797 of 2012 disposed of on
26.03.2014;
(4) Surendra Mahanta Vs. State of Odisha
and others disposed of on 08.08.2022 in
W.P.(C) No. 20396 of 2018;
(5) Baijayanti Nayak Vs. State of Odisha
and others (W.P.(C) No. 34453 of 2021
disposed of on 03.01.2024)."
7. Mr. S.N.Patnaik, on the other hand, would
argue that the arguments advanced by the Petitioner's
counsel is based on misconception inasmuch as even if
the order dtd.22.11.2023 nominating the Sub-Collector
to act as President of Governing Body was set aside by
the Co-ordinate Bench, the Notification dtd.23.12.2024
would automatically be applicable to the Petitioner
College for the reason that the bar regarding pendency
of a case relating to Governing Body was automatically
removed by disposal of the Writ Petition (W.P.(C)
No.39349/2023) on 22.1.2025. So, as on 23.1.2025,
the date on which the impugned order was issued,
there was no case pending. As per said Notification,
the Sub-Collector was directed to act temporarily as
the President of the Governing Body until further
orders. As regards, the settled position of law cited by
the Petitioner's counsel that the Sub-Collector as
President cannot function as the Governing Body, Mr.
Patnaik would argue that Rule 21 of the 1974 Rules
empowers the Director to initiate disciplinary action
against an employee of the Institution. As per office
order dtd.20.10.2020 followed by the Office order
dtd.11.5.2021 of the Government in the Department of
Higher Education, Special Secretary/Addl.
Secretary/Joint Secretary/Deputy Secretary working
as Branch head of non-Government Colleges
(Teaching-1) Section of the Department have been
authorized to act as Director for dealing with the
subjects covered under 1974 Rules.
In the instant case, after taking note of the
allegations levelled and the facts ascertained in the
inquiry conducted, the Special Secretary to
Government vide order dtd.22.1.2025 instructed the
President-cum-Sub-Collector to take immediate
disciplinary action against the persons concerned on
the basis of inquiry report or any other prima facie
evidence. He was also instructed to assign the charge
of Principal to the next senior faculty member. Mr.
Patnaik concludes his arguments by submitting that
the allegations of sexual misconduct levelled by a girl
student of the College are grave and serious and,
prima facie, the Petitioner, despite being in a position
of authority as the Principal was complicit and guilty of
not taking proper action at the relevant time.
8. In view of the facts narrated and the rival
contentions advanced by the parties as narrated above,
it is evident that the first point that falls for
consideration of this Court is, whether the Sub-
Collector, purportedly acting as the President of the
Governing Body of the College, was competent in law to
place the Petitioner under suspension pending drawl of
disciplinary proceeding against him.
9. To answer this, it would be apposite to mention
that the Sub-Collector was nominated to act as
President of the Governing Body by order dtd.
11.12.2023. In the case of Sri Satyasai Seva (supra)
followed in several decisions of this Court, it has been
held that the Sub-Collector can only function as the
President of the Governing Body, but cannot act as the
Governing Body. In other words, the Sub-Collector may
function as the President but lacks power to initiate or
take disciplinary action against an employee. The order
dtd.22.11.2023 was challenged before this Court in
W.P.(C) No.39349/2023 by another person. A co-
ordinate Bench of this Court set aside the nomination
on the ground that the Government, acting on the
recommendation of the Collector for reconstitution of
the Governing Body has no power under Rule 25 of the
Odisha Education (Establishment, recognition and
Management of Private Colleges) Rules, 1991 ( for short
1991 Rules) to nominate the Sub-Collector as the
President. Learned State counsel has heavily relied
upon the subsequent Notification dtd.23.12.2024
whereby the Governing Body of all non-Government
Aided Educational Institutions was dissolved and the
Sub-Collector of the concerned Sub-division (for
Colleges situated outside the District Headquarters)
were directed temporarily to act as President of the
Governing Body until further orders. According to
learned State counsel, even if the order dtd.22.11.2023
was quashed, the Notification dated 23.12.2024
automatically comes to the picture as on 23.1.2025.
This Court is unable to accept such argument for the
reason that the Notification dated 23.12.2024 is in
respect of those institutions of which the Governing
Body was functioning. The language used is as follows:
"In exercise of powers conferred under
proviso to Sub-Section (6) of Section-7
of the Orissa Education Act, 1969,
pending reconstitution of the
Governing Bodies or the Managing
Committees, the Government after
careful consideration have been
pleased to dissolve the Governing
Bodies or Managing Committees of all
Non-Government Aided Degree
Colleges of Odisha......".
(Emphasis added)
This implies, the Governing Bodies, wherever
they existed were dissolved. This would also mean that
the Notification will have no application in respect of
Institutions of which the Governing Bodies had already
been dissolved. For such institutions, the Notification
dated 23.12.2024 would be redundant as there was no
Governing Body to dissolve, which is an affirmative
and positive action taken by the Government. So, the
argument that the Notification dated 23.12.2024 would
automatically apply after the earlier Notification was
set aside by this Court is untenable more so, as the
same would also run contrary to the judgment of the
Co-ordinate Bench. So, there is force in the submission
of the learned counsel for the Petitioner that the Sub-
Collector acting as the President of the Governing Body
could not have placed the Petitioner under suspension.
10. The factual position, in the instant case, is
however different as the matter cannot be set at rest
merely by invoking the general principle that the Sub-
Collector cannot initiate any disciplinary action against
an employee. Fact remains that the impugned order
was issued not out of the blue by the Sub-Collector
but on the express direction of the Special Secretary
to the Government in the Higher Education
Department who, as already stated, is authorized to
act as the Director in terms of 1974 Rules. It would be
apposite at this stage to refer to the relevant letters of
the Government i.e., 20.10.2020 and 11.5.2021, both
of which are reproduced below:
"GOVERNMENT OF ODISHA
DEPARTMENT OF HIGHER EDUCATION
No. HE-NGCE(T-II)-MISC-22-2020-34042/HE.,
Dated 20-10-2020
OFFICE ORDER
In pursuance to Rule 2 (b) of Odisha Education
(Recruitment and Condition of Service of Teachers and
Members of the Staff of Aided Educational Institutions)
Rules, 1974, Government have now been pleased to
authorise the Special Secretary/ Additional Secretary/
Joint Secretary/ Deputy Secretary, working as Branch
Head of the Non-Govt. College Establishment
(Teaching-1) Section of the Higher education
Department, to act as Director for dealing with the
subjects covered under the said Rules in respect of
teaching and administrative staff of aided educational
institutions.
However, Director (Higher Education) will
continue to exercise his power under the said Rules, as
the Director, in respect of the non-teaching staff of
these aided educational institutions.
By Order of Governor
Commissioner-cum-Secretary to Govt.
Higher Education Department.
xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx."
"GOVERNMENT OF ODISHA
DEPARTMENT OF HIGHER EDUCATION
NO. HE-NCET 2-MISC-0040-2020/20027 /HE,
Bhubaneswar dated the 11.0.5.2021
From
Saswat Mishra, IAS
Principal Secretary to Government
To
Principals (All 488-Category and 662-Category Aided
Colleges)
Sub
Service Conditions/Transfer & Posting of Teaching
Staffs of Non-Government Aided Colleges
Sir/Madam,
Directorate of Higher Education was integrated
with the Department of Higher Education vide this
Department Notification No. 22850, Dated 30.10.2019.
Consequent upon the integration and restructuring of
this Department, Special Secretary/ Additional
Secretary/Joint Secretary /Deputy Secretary acting as
the Branch Head of the Non-Government College
Establishment (Teaching-1) Section of Higher
Education Department has been authorized to act as
Director for dealing with subjects like transfer, posting
and service conditions in respect of teaching and
administrative staff of aided educational institutions as
per Rule 2(b) of The Odisha Education (Recruitment
and Condition of Service of Teachers and Members of
the Staff of Aided Educational Institutions) Rules,
1974 and Rule 2(b) of The Odisha Aided Education
Institutions Employees Common Cadre and inter
transferability Rules, 1979 vide this Department Office
Order No.34042/HE, Dated 20.10.2020 and Order
No.16524/HE, Dated 08.04.2021 respectively.
Similarly, as per Office Order No.24810,
Dated.27.07.2020, Government in Higher Education
Department have declared Special Secretary/
Additional Secretary/Joint Secretary/Deputy Secretary
acting as the Branch Head of the Non-Government
College Establishment (Teaching-1) Section as the
Competent Authority, instead of Director (Higher
Education), to accord necessary approval for
appointment of Principal-in-Charge of Aided Colleges
and issue order empowering the Principal-in-Charge to
make all financial transactions on behalf of the college.
However, as was the practice earlier,
correspondences are still being made with the Director
(Higher Education) which causes dislocation and delay
in disposal of the cases. In view of this, you are hereby
advised to henceforth make all correspondences on the
above-mentioned subject matters with the Branch
Head of the Non-Government College Establishment
(Teaching-1) Section of the Higher Education
Department, instead of Director (Higher Education).
Yours faithfully
Principal Secretary to Government
xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx."
Thus, it is evident that the Special Secretary in
the department of Higher Education was authorized to
act as Director at least in respect of matters
concerning the 1974 Rules.
11. In this context, it is highly significant to note
that the impugned letter was preceded by letter
dtd.22.1.2025 of the Special Secretary (copy enclosed
as Annexure-C/1 to the counter affidavit) requesting
the Regional Director of Education to cause inquiry as
per 2013 Act, which was also issued to the Sub-
Collector under a Memo containing the following
instructions:
"Copy forwarded to the President-cum-Sub-
Collector, GB of Abhimanyu Samant Singhar
(Degree) College, Balia with a request to take
immediate disciplinary action against the
accused faculties on the basis of ICC Report
or any other prima facie evidence."
He is also requested to assign the charge
of principal to the next senior faculty member
and submit seniority-cum-suitability report
in the prescribed format for appointment of
principal and delegation of financial power."
(Emphasis added)
These instructions cannot simply be ignored in
the context of the present case.
12. It would be apposite to refer to Rule 21(1) of the
1974 Rules at this stage, the relevant portion of which
is re-produced below;
"21(1) Disciplinary authorities-(1) The Director
may impose any of the penalties specified in
Rule 20 on any employee:
Provided that the Director shall not initiate
any disciplinary proceeding unless the
Managing Committee or the Governing Body,
as the case may be, refuses or neglects to take
disciplinary action against any employee."
13. It goes without saying that law does not
envisage a vacuum. If the argument of the Petitioner is
accepted and the impugned action of the Sub-Collector is
set aside, it would create a vacuum in that there would be
no authority to take disciplinary action against an errant
employee even if the situation so demands. This could not
have been the intention of the legislature while framing the
1974 Rules. It is for such purpose that the legislature in
its wisdom empowered the Director to act as disciplinary
authority in case of refusal or neglect of the Governing
Body to do so. In a similar but slightly different context,
this Court, in the case of Girija Shankar Mohapatra vs.
State of Odisha and others (W.P.(C) No30343/2020)
held as follows;
"21. Now, coming to the question of competence of the
Sub-Collector in preparing the draft charges against
Girija Shankar Mohapatra in the capacity of Special
Officer and of the Director in approving such charges,
it has been argued that no authority other than the
governing body has the power to initiate and take
disciplinary action against a staff and that the Director
has only an advisory jurisdiction in terms of Rule-
22(12) of the 1974 Rules. This Court is unable to
accept the above arguments - firstly, for the reason
that if such is the interpretation then a vacuum would
be created inasmuch as there would be no one
competent to take disciplinary action against an errant
employee till reconstitution of the governing body.
Such a proposition would be absurd as there can be no
vacuum in law. Reference to Rule-21 of 1974 Rules
would indicate that the Director is competent to impose
the penalty specified in Rule-20 with the proviso that
the Director shall not initiate any disciplinary
proceeding unless the governing body refuses or
neglects to take disciplinary action against any
employee. For immediate reference, Rule 21(1) of 1974
Rules is quoted hereinbelow:
"21(1) The Director may impose any of the
penalties specified in rule 20 on any
employee: Provided that the Director shall not
initiate any disciplinary proceeding unless the
Managing Committee or the Governing Body,
as the case may be, refuses or neglect to take
disciplinary action against any employee."
22. Read as a whole, the interpretation according to
this Court of the above provision would be that
ordinarily it is the governing body which is competent
to initiate disciplinary proceeding against an
employee. But if it neglects or refuses to do so, the
Director can himself initiate a disciplinary proceeding.
The power to impose penalties is however, vested on
the Director subject to the proviso. On the same
analogy, in the absence of a governing body the
Director can initiate the proceeding and impose
penalties on an employee. Reference in this regard may
be had to the decision of this Court in the case of Dr.
Upendra Sahoo vs. State of Odisha and others; 2015
(Supp.1) OLR 1104 wherein the following
observations are noteworthy:-
"12. From the above order of the High Court,
it is crystal clear that this Court gave a clear
direction to the opposite party no.2 therein,
i.e., the Director, Higher Education,
Bhubaneswar to conclude the disciplinary
proceeding initiated against the petitioner
within a period of four months with further
direction to pay the arrear subsistence
allowance entitled to the petitioner within a
period of two months from the date of
communication of the order. It is needless to
submit here that Rule-21 of 74 Rules also
makes it clear that if Governing Body is
unable to conclude a proceeding the Director
can exercise the power of Disciplinary
authority hence and conclude the proceeding.
In the present case in absence of a Governing
Body the Director was directed to conclude
the disciplinary proceeding. On conclusion of
the Disciplinary proceeding at his end
following Sub-rule 2(b) of Rule 21 on his
recommendations the Government Body ought
to have imposed any of the penalties specified
in Rule 20 on the petitioner. xxx xxx xxx
(Emphasis supplied)"
23. Obviously, if any other interpretation would be
made, it would render the very object of the provision
otiose inasmuch as it would entail a situation where, as
already stated, there would be no authority competent
to take action against an errant employee. In other
words, a vacuum! The above could not have been the
object of the statute. It is well settled that the Court
must construe the statute to promote its object and to
serve the purpose for which it had been enacted and
not deface its very purpose. Reference in this regard
may be had to the judgment of the Supreme Court in
the case of RBI v. Peerless General Finance &
Investment Co. Ltd.; (1987) 1 SCC 424, where the
following observations are noteworthy:
"33. Interpretation must depend on the text
and the context. They are the bases of
interpretation. One may well say if the text is
the texture, context is what gives the colour.
Neither can be ignored. Both are important.
That interpretation is best which makes the
textual interpretation match the contextual. A
statute is best interpreted when we know why
it was enacted. With this knowledge, the
statute must be read, first as a whole and
then section by section, clause by clause,
phrase by phrase and word by word. If a
statute is looked at, in the context of its
enactment, with the glasses of the statute-
maker, provided by such context, its scheme,
the sections, clauses, phrases and words may
take colour and appear different than when
the statute is looked at without the glasses
provided by the context. With these glasses
we must look at the Act as a whole and
discover what each section, each clause,
each phrase and each word is meant and
designed to say as to fit into the scheme of
the entire Act. No part of a statute and no
word of a statute can be construed in
isolation. Statutes have to be construed so
that every word has a place and everything is
in its place. It is by looking at the definition
as a whole in the setting of the entire Act and
by reference to what preceded the enactment
and the reasons for it that the Court
construed the expression "Prize Chit" in
Srinivasa [(1980) 4 SCC 507 : (1981) 1 SCR
801 : 51 Com Cas 464] and we find no
reason to depart from the Court's
construction."
24. Further, a statute is designed to be workable, and
the interpretation thereof by a Court should be to
secure that object. Further, the Courts strongly lean
against any construction which tends to reduce a
statute to futility. The provision of the statute must be
so construed as to make it effective and operative.
Reference in this regard may be had to the judgment of
the Supreme Court in the case of Tinsukhia Electric
Supply Co. Ltd. v. State of Assam, where the following
observations are noteworthy.
The courts strongly lean against any construction
which tends to reduce a statute to futility. The
provision of a statute must be so construed as to make
it effective and operative, on the principle "ut res
magis valeat quam pereat". It is, no doubt, true that if
a statute is absolutely vague and its language wholly
intractable and absolutely meaningless, the statute
could be declared void for vagueness. This is not in
judicial review by testing the law for arbitrariness or
unreasonableness under Article 14; but what a court of
construction, dealing with the language of a statute,
does in order to ascertain from, and accord to, the
statute the meaning and purpose which the legislature
intended for it. In Manchester Ship Canal Co. v.
Manchester Racecourse Co. [(1904) 2 Ch 352: 16
TLR 429 : 83 LT 274] Farwell J. said: (pp.360-61)
"Unless the words were so absolutely
senseless that I could do nothing at all with
them, I should be bound to find some meaning
and not to clear them void for uncertainty."
14. Learned counsel for the Petitioner has accepted
the above position in the note of arguments filed in the
case, but has argued that the Director has not placed
the Petitioner under suspension or instituted any
disciplinary proceeding against him. For the reasons
already indicated, this Court is unable to accept this
argument. As already stated, the Sub-Collector never
acted on his own but under the express directions of
the Special Secretary, who is authorized to act as a
Director. So even if it is held that the Sub-Collector
was not functioning as the President of the Governing
Body, the same is of no consequence as it would mean
that he had merely communicated what the Special
Secretary (authorized to act as a Director) had asked
him to. So it is not a case of any disciplinary action
being taken by the Sub-Collector as President of the
Governing Body. Merely designating himself as such in
the impugned order cannot serve to alter the factual
position that he was acting on the directions of the
Special Secretary, who was competent in law to do so.
15. Thus, from a conspectus of the facts, law,
contentions raised and the discussion made, this
Court is left with no doubt that the impugned order,
though issued by the Sub-Collector cannot be
interfered with on the ground of absence of authority.
Even if it is accepted that he was no longer the
President of the Governing Body or that he had no
power to initiate any disciplinary action acting as such,
the same will not take away the express instruction of
the Special Secretary, authorized to act as Director,
and the Sub-Collector must be deemed to have merely
communicated the same in the form of the impugned
order. This Court is therefore, not persuaded to
interfere with the same.
16. For the foregoing reasons therefore, the Writ
Petition fails and is therefore, dismissed. There shall be
no order as to cost.
................................
Sashikanta Mishra,
Judge
Ashok Kumar Behera
Designation: A.D.R.-cum-Addl. Principal Secretary
Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack
Date: 07-Jul-2025 11:15:01
