Orissa High Court
Afr Purusottam Barik vs State Of Odisha & Others ....... Opp. ... on 31 October, 2025
Author: Sashikanta Mishra
Bench: Sashikanta Mishra
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
W.P.(C) No. 15791 of 2025
(Application under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of
India)
---------------
AFR Purusottam Barik ...... Petitioner
- Versus -
State of Odisha & Others ....... Opp. Parties
Advocate(s) appeared in this case :-
___________________________________________________________
For Petitioner : M/s. M.K. Khuntia, G.R. Sethi & B.K.
Pattanaik, Advocates.
For Opp. Parties : Mr. S.N. Pattnaik,
Addl. Government Advocate
[For O.P Nos. 1 & 2]
Ms. J. Tripathy, Special Counsel for
State
_______________________________________________________
CORAM:
JUSTICE SASHIKANTA MISHRA
JUDGMENT
st
31 October, 2025
SASHIKANTA MISHRA, J. This is the third journey of the
petitioner to this Court on more or less the same issue.
2. The facts of this case are that the petitioner was
engaged as Gram Rozgar Sevak (GRS) of Gopinathpur Gram
Panchayat in Chandbali Block of Bhadrak District. While
working as such, a joint enquiry was conducted against him
on the allegation that he had violated the model code of
conduct along with the Panchayat Secretary during the
Panchayati Raj Elections of 2022. On the recommendation of
the State Election Commission, Odisha vide letter dated
20.01.2022, the Collector, Bhadrak, vide office order issued
on the same date, disengaged the petitioner with immediate
effect. The petitioner challenged such order before this Court
in W.P.(C) No.10415 of 2022, which was disposed of vide
order dated 29.04.2022 granting him liberty to submit a
representation before the Collector, who was to consider the
same without being influenced by his earlier order.
2.1 The petitioner submitted representation on
04.05.2022, basing on which the Collector initiated Misc.
Case No.26 of 2022. In course of hearing, the Collector
called for a report from the Block Development Officer
(BDO), Chandbali and District Panchayat Officer (DPO),
Bhadrak. The BDO submitted a report on 24.05.2022
stating that there was no conclusive evidence with regard to
the allegations against the petitioner. The D.P.O. however,
submitted a contrary report. The Collector, by order dated
16.06.2022 rejected the representation of the petitioner.
2.2 The petitioner challenged such order of rejection
before this Court in W.P.(C) No. 18543 of 2022. A coordinate
Bench of this Court, vide order dated 18.10.2023 found that
the principles of natural justice had not been followed.
Accordingly, the order of disengagement dated 20.01.2022
was quashed with direction to conduct enquiry with due
compliance to the principles of natural justice.
2.3 The petitioner thereafter submitted representation
before the Collector praying to be reinstated and to conduct
enquiry after granting him opportunity of hearing. The
Collector, by letter dated 06.03.2024, instructed the Chief
Development Officer (CDO) to conduct enquiry following the
principles of natural justice and to submit report. The CDO,
by letter dated 02.07.2024 instructed the DPO to submit a
detailed report. The DPO vide letter dated 11.07.2024
submitted a report stating that the evidence against the
petitioner is inconclusive and insufficient and as such, his
case for reengagement may be considered sympathetically.
Since no action was taken despite such favourable
recommendation, the petitioner approached this Court yet
again in the present writ application seeking the following
relief:
"It is therefore prayed that the Hon'ble court
may graciously be pleased to admit the case and call
for the records and after hearing both the parties pas
the following reliefs:
i) To direct the Opposite Parties to reinstate the
petitioner in service as per Judgment dtd. 18.10.2023
passed in W.P.(C) No. 18543 of 2022.
ii) To direct the opposite parties to regularize the
service of the petitioner from the date when his
juniors have been regularized with all financial and
consequential service benefits.
And pass such order/orders as would be
deemed fit and proper.
And for this act of kindness, the petitioner as in
duty bound shall ever pray."
3. Counter affidavit has been filed by the CDO,
Bhadrak. It is stated that while disposing of the earlier writ
application filed by the petitioner (W.P.(C) No. 18543 of
2022), this Court did not whisper anything with regard to
reinstatement of the petitioner. As such, the prayer of the
petitioner for reinstatement must be deemed to have been
rejected. It is further stated that the petitioner was engaged
against a contractual post, which is not a civil post and is
annually renewable subject to fulfillment of certain
conditions. As such, his claim for regularization cannot be
considered. It is further stated that serious allegations were
levelled against the petitioner, basing on which a joint
enquiry report was submitted by the BDO, Chandbali on
19.11.2022. The Collector took appropriate decision on
consideration of the report. The report submitted by the DPO
cannot be accepted since it only contains his personal
opinion. The Collector had directed the CDO to conduct
enquiry and not the DPO.
4. Counter affidavit has also been filed on behalf of
the Collector-cum-Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad. It
is, inter alia stated that the so-called enquiry conducted by
the CDO does not meet the standards mandated by this
Court and law and therefore, it is imperative that the
enquiry be conducted afresh ensuring full compliance with
the principles of natural justice and affording fair
opportunity of hearing to all concerned parties.
5. The petitioner has filed a reply basically stating
that the earlier order of disengagement having been quashed
by this Court, he is entitled to be reinstated in service as a
natural corollary of the same.
6. Heard Mr. M.K. Khuntia, learned counsel for the
petitioner, Mr. S.N. Pattnaik, learned Addl. Government
Advocate for the State and Ms. J.R. Tripathy, learned Special
Counsel appearing for the State for MGNREGS.
7. Mr. Khuntia would argue that once the order of
disengagement passed by the Collector is quashed, it is no
longer in existence and the natural corollary thereof would
be to restore the things as they were. In other words, the
petitioner is entitled to be reinstated in service. Mr. Khuntia
further submits that from the conduct of the opposite party
authorities it can be well seen that they somehow want to
keep the petitioner away from service despite quashment of
the earlier order of disengagement. In any case, such action
cannot be countenanced on the face of a favorable report
submitted by the BDO, Chandbali on 24.05.2022 and the
DPO, Bhadrak on 11.07.2024 to the effect that the evidence
against the petitioner is inconclusive and insufficient. Under
such circumstances, the authorities have no other option
but to reinstate the petitioner in service as also to grant him
the benefit of regularization as granted to similarly placed
employees.
8. Mr. Pattnaik, learned State Counsel forcefully
argues that the prayer for reinstatement in service is hit by
the principles of res judicata since the petitioner had filed
the earlier application with the same prayer but this Court
had not said anything in that regard. Therefore, the prayer
for reinstatement must be deemed to have been refused by
this Court. It is therefore, not legally permissible for the
petitioner to reagitate the issue. Mr. Pattnaik would further
argue that even otherwise, this Court had directed enquiry
to be conducted after adhering to the principles of natural
justice. The Collector instructed the CDO to do the needful,
who, in turn, called for a report from the DPO. Thus, no
enquiry worth the name was conducted as directed by this
Court. Therefore, in order to strictly comply with the
direction of this Court, the CDO has in the meantime
conducted an enquiry granting opportunity of hearing to the
petitioner and held that the earlier decision to disengage him
is just and proper. The petitioner had not challenged such
order. On merits, Mr. Pattnaik would argue that there is
clear evidence that the petitioner had violated the model
code of conduct during Panchayati Raj election at the
relevant time as was proved in the joint enquiry conducted
by the BDO, Chandbali.
9. Ms. J. Tripathy, while adopting the arguments
made by the State Counsel additionally submits that the
enquiry revealed that the petitioner's younger brother was a
candidate for Sarpanch in the Panchayat Elections. The
petitioner was actively involved in political meetings for
which photographs and video clips had gone viral in the
social media. The petitioner was also withdrawn from
Gopinathpur Gram Panchayat for such reason. All these
facts have been clearly proved for which the Collector, in
view of the findings of the enquiry conducted by the CDO in
compliance of the judgment passed by this Court in the
earlier writ application, found no reason to revoke the order
of disengagement. As regards the enquiry said to have been
conducted by the CDO in course of pendency of the writ
application, Ms. Tripathy filed the enquiry report dated
04.10.2025 through a memo. Mr. Khuntia, learned counsel
for the petitioner submits that the so-called enquiry cannot
be taken note of in view of the report of the DPO that there is
no conclusive evidence regarding the allegations against the
petitioner. According to Mr. Khuntia, the enquiry report of
the Collector is nothing but an attempt to patch up the
lacuna in the stand taken by the authorities.
10. The facts of the case are undisputed and need not
be gone into in detail. It would suffice to note that being
aggrieved by the order of disengagement dated 20.01.2022
passed by the Collector, Bhadrak, the petitioner had
approached this Court by filing a writ application which was
disposed of granting him liberty to submit a representation
to the Collector, which was to be considered in accordance
with law. The Collector considered the representation and by
order dated 16.06.2022, rejected the same. Said order was
again challenged before this Court in W.P.(C) No.18543 of
2022. A coordinate Bench of this Court passed a detailed
judgment and held that the Collector's order of rejection was
without compliance of the principles of natural justice.
Accordingly, the following direction was issued.
"In light of the aforesaid discussion and having
regard to the present position of law, this Court is of
the opinion that the order of disengagement dated
20.01.2022 issued by the Opposite Party
No.2/Collector-cum-DPC, MGNREGS & CEO, Zilla
Parisad, Bhadrak should be quashed and the inquiry
be conducted with due compliance to the principles of
natural justice."
11. Significantly, despite quashing the order of
disengagement, the coordinate Bench did not direct
reinstatement of the petitioner but directed enquiry to be
conducted with due compliance to the principles of natural
justice.
12. The question is, whether in the absence of any
such positive direction, reinstatement of the petitioner would
be a natural corollary. This Court is not inclined to hold so
for the reason that had the order of disengagement been
quashed without any further direction, a claim for
reinstatement could be raised as corollary to the order.
However, along with quashment of the impugned order there
was also a direction for conducting enquiry. It obviously
means the question of reinstatement would depend upon the
result of the enquiry to be conducted as directed by this
Court. Moreover, the petitioner was not holding any civil
post as his engagement was purely contractual in nature
subject to renewal on yearly basis. The petitioner's
'reinstatement', if at all, can only be by executing a fresh
contract as the previous contract must be held to have been
terminated by the order of disengagement. This would
actually be 're-engagement' and not reinstatement as
claimed by the petitioner. In such a situation, quashment of
the order of disengagement cannot, ipso facto, mean
restoration of status quo ante as would normally happen in
case of a person holding a civil post.
13. Coming to the other aspects of the case, it is seen
that though the judgment of the coordinate Bench was
passed on 18.06.2023, enquiry was not conducted for a long
time. The ADM, Bhadrak by letter dated 22.11.2023 directed
the CDO to conduct enquiry. The CDO, however, appears to
have slept over the matter till as long as 02.07.2024 when
he passed the buck to the DPO, Bhadrak calling for a report.
The DPO, in turn, submitted his report on 11.07.2024. It
would be worthwhile to consider the report of the DPO in
some detail for which it is deemed proper to extract the
entire letter hereinbelow:-
"DISTRICT PANCHAYAT OFFICE,
BHADRAK
Letter No. 576 Dt. 11/07/24
To
The C.D.O.-cum-E.O.
Zilla Parisad, Bhadrak
Sub :- Submission of report and documents available
in connection with violation of MCC during PRI
election, 2022.
Ref: Your letter No. 1192, dt-02.07.2024
Sir,
In inviting reference to the letter on the subject
cited above, i am to say that in course of PRI election
2022 the secretary SEC, Odisha had transmitted an
allegation petition filed by Debedra Kumar Nanda,
State Secretary BJP, Odisha on dated 19.01.2022.
Immediately on receipt of petition it was forwarded
vide this office letter no. 104, dt 19.01.2022 to BDO,
Chandbali to conduct in enquiry into the petition. In
response to it BDO, Chandbali had submitted the
report within same day vide his letter no. 198, dt.
19.01.2022 (copy enclosed). As per report received
from BDO Chandbali regarding violation of model
code of conduct secy. SEC, Odisha was intimated
vide this office letter no. 121, dt. 20.01.2022 (copy
enclosed). On receipt of report of Collector Secy. SEC,
Odisha instructed to Collector to disengage the GRS
and issue show cause to PEO, Gopinathpur G.P.
Accordingly Collector-cum-DPC MGNREGS and CEO,
ZP. Bhadrak disengage GRS Sri Purusottam Barik
vide DRDA order no. 314, dt. 22.01.2022 (copy
enclosed).
There after Sri Barik had filed a case bearing
WP(C) No. 10415 of 2022 before Hon'ble High Court,
Odisha challenging the order of disengagement vide
office order no. 314, dt 22.01.2022 of DRDA,
Bhadrak. Hon'ble High Court, Odisha have disposed
off the case and passed order on dt. 29.04.2022 that
"the writ petition is disposed of directing the
opposite party no.2 the Collector to reconsider
the matter without being influenced by the
earlier order dt. 20.01.2022 referred to
hereinabove".
Accordingly on receipt of the order on Hon'ble
High Court, Odisha a miscase no 26 of 2022 was
initiated in the court of Collector, Bhadrak and in this
case BDO, Chandbali was instructed to submit a
detail report vide District Office letter no 4144, dt.
17.05.2022. In response to it BDO, Chandbali as
submitted a detail report vide his letter no- 1356, dt
24.05.2022 (copy enclosed). Where in it was
mentioned that the evidence against Sri Purusottam
Barik EX-GRS is in-conclusive and insufficient. The
punishment against Sri Barik, who has been
terminated from service vide letter no. 314 dt.
22.01.2022 of Collector, Bhadrak is quite
disproportionate as the alleged crime has not been
definitively proven. Hence he can be presumed
innocent unless proven guilty.
The misc. case has been disposed by Collector,
Bhadrak on dt. 16.06.2022 (copy enclosed).
Again Sri Barik GRS filed a case bearing WP(C)
no. 18543 of 2022 before Hon'ble High Court, Odisha
challenging the order passed by Collector, Bhadrak in
miscase no. 26 of 2022 that Collector had not taken
into consideration the report submitted by BDO,
Chandbali.
Hence if pleases as report submitted by BDO
Chandbali vide his letter no.1356 dt.24.05.22 that
evidence against Sri Purusottam Barik Ex-GRS is in-
conclusive and insufficient. As such his case for his
reengagement may kindly be considered sympathy
ally and take action accordingly.
Yours faithfully
Sd/-11.07.2024
District Panchayat Officer,
Bhadrak"
14. On a plain reading of the above letter, it transpires
that there is no enquiry as such conducted by the DPO
independently, rather, he deemed it proper to refer to the
report dated 24.05.2022 of the BDO, Chandbali to the effect
that evidence against the petitioner was inconclusive and
insufficient. Additionally, he recommended that the case of
the petitioner's reengagement may be considered
sympathetically. This Court fails to understand as to how
the above can be construed as any enquiry in the real sense
of the term or that it is in consonance with the direction of
this Court. Some materials have been placed before this
Court to suggest that the petitioner, Tahasildar, Chandbali,
BDO, Chandbali and the original complainant against the
petitioner were directed to appear personally on 05.08.2025.
The report of the CDO dated 04.10.2025 has been placed
before this Court through a memo which shows that the
noticees were present and participated in enquiry conducted
by the CDO. The petitioner contends that the report of the
DPO dated 11.07.2024 (Annexure-8) submitted to the CDO
satisfies the direction of this Court in the earlier writ
application of conducting enquiry. For the reasons indicated,
this Court is unable to persuade itself to accept such
contention. True, there is delay in acting strictly as per the
directions of this Court in the earlier judgment but the same
itself does not mean that the enquiry conducted by the CDO
on 05.08.2025 and the report submitted on 04.10.2025 was
not in terms of the said judgment.
15. The petitioner, though participated in the enquiry,
has not specifically challenged the enquiry report of the
CDO, which was accepted by the Collector vide order dated
10.10.2025. As such, approach of the petitioner to this
Court in the present writ application must, in the facts and
circumstances of the case, be held to be premature.
16. Thus, from a conspectus of the facts, contentions
raised and the discussions made, this Court holds that the
petitioner's claim for reinstatement at this stage merits no
consideration. The writ application is therefore, dismissed.
The petitioner, if so advised, may challenge the order of the
Collector accepting the enquiry report submitted by the CDO
before the appropriate forum.
.................................
Sashikanta Mishra,
Judge
Orissa High Court, Cuttack.
The 31st October, 2025/ A.K. Rana, P.A.
Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACK
Date: 31-Oct-2025 18:11:59
