Orissa High Court
Jayasmita Kabat vs State Of Odisha & Others ....... Opp. ... on 21 March, 2025
Author: Sashikanta Mishra
Bench: Sashikanta Mishra
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
W.P.(C) No. 27901 of 2024
Application under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of
India.
---------------
Jayasmita Kabat ...... Petitioner
- Versus -
State of Odisha & Others ....... Opp. Parties
Advocate(s) appeared in this case:-
________________________________________________________
For Petitioner : Mr. P.C. Acharya, Advocate.
For Opp. Parties : Mr. S.S. Routray,
Addl. Standing Counsel
_________________________________________________________
CORAM:
JUSTICE SASHIKANTA MISHRA
JUDGMENT
21.03.2025
SASHIKANTA MISHRA, J.
The petitioner has approached this Court with the
following prayer:
"The petitioner therefore, prays that your
Lordships would be pleased to admit the case,
call for the records from the opposite parties and
after hearing the parties allow the same with
cost and issue a writ/writs in the nature of
Mandamus/Certiorari, or any other or further
writs/ directions quashing Annexure-3 Series as
illegal and further pass an order to take back the
petitioner from 05.11.2024 to the post Jogan
Sahayak with her salary or may pass any other
order as this Hon'ble Court deem fit and proper ;
And for which act of kindness, the
petitioners shall as in duty bound ever pray."
2. The facts of the case are that the petitioner was
appointed as Jogan Sahayak by order dated 01.07.2020 of the
Collector, Mayurbhanj and was assigned to Nadpur, Gram
Panchayat. While working as such, on 02.11.2024 the ABDO,
Betnoti visited the spot to enquire about the alleged
misappropriation of PDS rice as complained by the public.
Because of public agitation however, he could not complete the
enquiry and therefore, returned after sealing the PDS godown
along with rice bags and two different weighing scales kept
therein. On 05.11.2024, a team headed by the BDO, Betnoti,
GPDO, WEO, MI, ABDO and ACLM, Baripada went to the spot
and conducted inquiry after opening the seal of the godown.
They found two weighing scales inside the godown. The
correctness of the weighing scales was checked and it was
found that the Government supplied weighing scale (Phoneix)
showed correct weighment but the other scale (Sansui) showed
220 grams extra. Further, there was no seal attached to the
said weighing scale.
3. The petitioner was called upon to explain pursuant to
which, she submitted her explanation in writing but the inquiry
team concluded that the petitioner has violated the Government
guidelines by not weighing the rice quantity in the Government
supplied weighing scale, which is integrated and linked with
PSO device. On the basis of such findings, the BDO, Betnoti
vide order dated 05.11.2024 along with the Marketing Inspector
and Sarpanch being the selection committee, unanimously
decided to disengage the petitioner as Jogan Sahayak and to go
for fresh advertisement. Consequent upon such order, the
formal order of disengagement was issued by the Sarpanch on
05.11.2024. Being aggrieved, the petitioner has approached this
Court in the present writ application with the prayer as quoted
above.
4. Counter affidavit has been filed by the BDO, inter alia,
stating that the petitioner was earlier supplied with Sansui
weighing scale by the Gram Panchayat, which was utilized for
operating the distribution programme of food grains.
Subsequently, as per Government instructions, electronic
digital platform weighing scale with e-Pos device was made
mandatory for weighment of the food grains. Accordingly, one
such weighing scale was supplied to the Nadpur Gram
Panchayat. There being a complaint raised by the villagers with
regard to alleged shortfall in weighment of PDS rice the enquiry
was conducted, wherein, it was found that the petitioner was
weighing the PDS rice using the old machine and not the
Government supplied machine. As such, she was rightly
disengaged as she could not satisfactorily explain such fact.
5. Heard Mr. P.C. Acharya, learned counsel for the petitioner
and Mr. S.S. Routray, learned Additional Standing Counsel for
the State.
6. Mr. Acharya would submit that due to the two weighing
scales available in the Gram Panchayat, the petitioner was
using both in order to meet the heavy demand associated with
the distribution of rice. In any case, the difference between the
two weighing scales was only 220 grams. He further submits
that even according to the authorities there is no evidence of
any quantity of rice being misappropriated by the petitioner and
therefore, taking the extreme step of disengaging her from her
post is not only illegal but also unjust.
7. Mr. S.S. Routray, learned State counsel would submit that
it was clearly proved that the petitioner was utilizing the
weighing scale supplied by the Gram Panchayat which, on
examination by the Assistant Controller Legal Metrology was
found to be given wrong weight to the extent of 220 grams. This,
according to Mr. Routray proves that excess rice beyond the
permissible limit was being distributed.
8. I have considered the rival submissions and also perused
the enquiry report, explanation submitted by the petitioner and
other materials on record. There is no dispute that two weighing
scales were found to be present in the godown. It is not the case
of the authorities that the weighing scale utilized by the
petitioner was her own but it is borne out from the materials on
the record that the same was supplied by the Gram Panchayat
and was being utilized till the Government weighing scale was
supplied. It is also borne out from the record that the
Government weighing scale was supplied on 05.10.2024.
Nothing has been placed before this Court to suggest that there
was any foul play or any erroneous measurement of rice
utilizing the old machine prior to 05.10.2024. Moreover, in the
counter affidavit it is stated under paragraph-19 that there is
no specific allegation regarding misappropriation of the PDS
rice. For reference the same is reproduced below:
"That, in reply to the averments made by the
petitioner in Para-12 of the writ petition, it is humbly
submitted that the Jogan Sahayak, Nadpur done
gross irregularities for disobedience of Govt.
guidelines in distribution of PDS food grains through
Govt. supplied weighing scale integrated with the POS
device and not distributing Ragi to the beneficiaries
which should be distributed by the end of September,
2024 letter No.647 dated 26.06.2024. Even if there is
no specific allegation with respect to misappropriation
of the PDS but the admission of the petitioner utilizing
the old defective machine is sufficient to draw a
conclusion about violation of Government guideline
and as such there is no illegality in disengaging her.
Further as described in the previous paragraphs the
action of disengagement of the petitioner has been
taken only after considering her defence and
conducting enquiry in her presence. As such the
allegation of disengaging the petitioner without giving
any reasonable opportunity of being heard by the
petitioner is completely incorrect and accordingly
denied by the deponent."
(Emphasis added)
9. Perusal of the explanation submitted by the petitioner
reveals that she had specifically stated that the measurement
was being done in presence of general public and because of the
Government instructions to distribute three months' ration,
there was heavy load. Since no load was put on the weighing
scale it reflected some incorrect measurement. The decision
taken by the selection committee to disengage the petitioner
was without considering the above aspect. Since the petitioner
submitted a plausible explanation, the same ought to have been
considered. In any case, regard being had to the specific
admission by the State in its counter that there is no evidence
of any kind of misappropriation of rice by the petitioner, this
Court is of the considered view that the extreme step of
disengagement of the petitioner as Jogan Sahayak is not
warranted or justified, the same being unduly harsh and
disproportionate. When it is a question of livelihood of a person,
a right guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India,
it is imperative that the concerned authorities should act with
utmost sensitivity and fairness. In the instant case, from the
facts narrated before, it is discernible that the authorities
concerned have acted somewhat mechanically and despite no
evidence of any serious misconduct, decided to take the harsh
step of disengagement of the petitioner.
10. From a conspectus of the discussion made hereinbefore,
this Court is left with no doubt that the order of disengagement
cannot be sustained in the eye of law, being unduly harsh and
disproportionate.
11. For the foregoing reasons therefore, the writ petition is
allowed. The impugned order of disengagement issued against
the petitioner is hereby set aside. The Opposite Party
authorities are directed to reinstate the petitioner as Jogan
Sahayak forthwith. It is made clear that the petitioner shall not
be entitled to any financial benefit for the period of her
disengagement but the said period shall notionally count
towards continuity in employment. Necessary orders in this
regard shall be passed within four weeks from the date of
production of certified copy of this order by the petitioner.
................................
Sashikanta Mishra,
Judge
Orissa High Court, Cuttack.
The 21st of March, 2025/ P. Ghadai, Jr. Steno.
Designation: Junior Stenographer
Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack.
Date: 26-Mar-2025 17:49:59
