Jagatiswar Sahoo vs State Of Odisha & Others ....... Opp. ...
2025 Latest Caselaw 4918 Ori

Citation : 2025 Latest Caselaw 4918 Ori
Judgement Date : 12 March, 2025

Orissa High Court

Jagatiswar Sahoo vs State Of Odisha & Others ....... Opp. ... on 12 March, 2025

Author: Sashikanta Mishra

Bench: Sashikanta Mishra

           IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

                       W.P.(C) No. 9077 of 2023

    Application under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of
    India.
                               ---------------
    Jagatiswar Sahoo                         ......   Petitioner

                        - Versus -

    State of Odisha & Others              .......   Opp. Parties


    Advocate(s) appeared in this case:-
    ________________________________________________________

    For Petitioner      :    Mr. A. Tripathy, Advocate.

    For Opp. Parties    :    Mr. S.R. Pattnaik,
                             Addl. Government Advocate


    _________________________________________________________
    CORAM:
         JUSTICE SASHIKANTA MISHRA

                             JUDGMENT

12.03.2025

SASHIKANTA MISHRA, J.

The petitioner was engaged as Jogan Sahayak in

Dhaulimuhan Gram Panchayat by order dated 20.05.2013 of

the BDO, Khurda. While working as such, his remuneration

was withheld for some period for which he approached this

Court. While working as such, vide order dated 03.01.2022 he

was withdrawn from his official work and directed to assist the

PEO in his day to day work. The petitioner approached this

Court challenging such decision in W.P.(C) No.8506 of 2022. By

order dated 12.04.2022, a coordinate Bench of this Court

directed the BDO to consider the representation then pending

before him for disposal in accordance with law. Pursuant to

such order, by order dated 02.06.2022 the petitioner was

reinstated in his former post and joined on 03.06.2022. His

remuneration from November, 2021 having not been released,

he submitted representation on 18.07.2022 addressed to the

Principal Secretary, Food Supplies and Consumer Welfare

Department (FS & CW Department). As per instruction issued

by the department, the remuneration of the petitioner for the

months of November & December, 2021 was credited to his

account. However, most surprisingly, by order dated

02.02.2023, the BDO apart from holding that the petitioner will

not be entitled to remuneration for the dates on which he did

not render work, also decided that he shall not be engaged in

the Gram Panchayat. Copy of said order, which is enclosed as

Annexure-8 to the writ application, is impugned.

2. The stand of the State, as per the counter affidavit

filed is that the petitioner had not worked from 06.01.2022 to

02.06.2022 and from 02.07.2022 to 31.10.2022 for which the

impugned order was rightly issued. A coordinate Bench of this

Court by order dated 28.07.2023 directed the BDO, Khurda to

conduct an inquiry and submit report. Accordingly, the BDO

conducted inquiry and submitted report through an affidavit

before this Court. Copy of the inquiry report, which is enclosed

as Annexure-B/5 to the affidavit, reveals that the petitioner was

found guilty of two allegations. The petitioner submitted his

clarification, to which a reply has also been filed by the BDO.

3. Heard Mr. A. Tripathy, learned counsel for the petitioner

and Mr. S.R. Pattnaik, learned Addl. Government Advocate for

the State.

4. Mr. Tripathy would submit that the impugned order

does not disclose any ground whatsoever for disengagement of

the petitioner as Jogan Sahayak. Only because this Court

directed the BDO to conduct inquiry, fresh allegations have

been made against him. Even then, said allegations have not

been inquired into properly and the finding against the

petitioner is absolutely without basis.

5. Mr. Pattnaik, on the other hand would forcefully submit

that there are multiple allegations against the petitioner

including the allegation of misappropriation of Government rice.

It was established that the petitioner lifted rice in the name of

dead persons for his own benefit.

6. This Court firstly observes that the impugned order under

Annexure-8 does not cite any ground whatsoever for

disengaging the petitioner much less the ground of

misappropriation or any misconduct. The counter affidavit filed

by the State does not in the least throw light as to the decision

taken to disengage the petitioner. Be that as it may, this Court

having directed the BDO to conduct a field inquiry, a report has

been submitted being Annexure-B/5. Perusal of the report

reveals that two allegations have been leveled against the

petitioner-firstly, he is alleged to have lifted rice in the name of

the mother of one Gurubari Behera even after being intimated

of her death. The finding of the BDO on this allegation are

reproduced herein below.

"During enquiry and detail verification of Ration Distribution Book of the petitioner along with online PDS date base portal of FS & CW Department., it is found that, the allegation made by the petitioner is true and based on facts. Sri Jagatiswar Sahoo, Ex- Jogan Sahayak has misappropriated the PDS commodities with a tune of 0.7 qtls knowingly keeping both the petitioner and Gram Panchayatr administration in darkness."

This can hardly be treated as a finding based on evidence or

materials.

7. As to the allegation of misappropriation of rice in respect of

another beneficiary namely, Sarojini Paikaray. Following is the

finding of the inquiry.

"During re-verification of pure un- authentication offline transaction from the online PDS data base portal, it is also noticed that PDS commodities of one Antodaya Arna Yojan (AAY) beneficiary namely Sarojini Paikaray of Durgaprasad village has also been misappropriated From enquiry it is also revealed that Sarojini Paikaray has died on 20.09.2019 whereas PDS commodities against the beneficiary have been lifted up to June 2021 and not distributed to any other 02 members of her family, which proved misappropriation of ration in the name of deceased person as well as genuine alive beneficiaries."

8. Again, this can hardly be treated as a finding in

accordance with law inasmuch as how it was held that the fact

of death of Sarojini Paikaray was within the knowledge of the

petitioner has not been spelt out at all. Here thus, as it appears,

the allegations of misappropriation were not proved but,

inferred.

9. The second allegation relates to the non-seeding of the

Aadhar with Ration Card of another beneficiary namely

Sandhya Bhanda. The finding of the BDO is as follows;

"During enquiry, it is found that Sri Jagatiswar Sahoo, Ex-Jogan Sahayak, Dhaulimuhan Gram Panchayat has not informed the beneficiary regarding necessity of seeding of Aadhar with ration Card. This indicates clear negligence in Govt. duties and due to his callousness attitude the PDS beneficiaries have deprived to get benefit for which they are legally entitled."

10. How the BDO arrived at the finding that the

petitioner had not informed the beneficiary regarding the

seeding has not been given out. As it appears, simply on the

basis of the written allegations made by the concerned

beneficiaries without obtaining version of the petitioner

thereupon, the BDO has arrived at the finding of guilt of the

petitioner.

11. From the foregoing narration, it is evident that the

impugned order cannot be sustained. Secondly, the finding of

guilt as per the inquiry conducted by the BDO also cannot be

sustained for the reasons indicated above.

12. The writ application is therefore allowed. The