Orissa High Court
Biraja Prasad Acharya vs State Of Odisha And Others on 19 September, 2025
Author: Mruganka Sekhar Sahoo
Bench: Mruganka Sekhar Sahoo
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
WA No. 2476 of 2024
Biraja Prasad Acharya .... Appellant
Represented by -
Mr. Dayanidhi Mishra, Advocate
-Versus-
State of Odisha and others .... Respondents
Represented by Advocate -
Mr. Prem Kumar Mohanty, ASC
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANASH RANJAN PATHAK
AND
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MRUGANKA SEKHAR SAHOO
ORDER
Order No. 19.09.2025
02. 1. The matter was passed-over during the first hour when it reached,
and again called and taken up after recess.
2. We have heard substantially Mr. Mishra, learned counsel for the
Appellant.
3. The Appellant has challenged the judgment dated 26th July, 2024
passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.(C) No. 2725 of 2023
confirming the order of the Collector, Bolangir dated 30.06.2022 in Misc.
Case No.11 of 2022 and the Office Order No.883 dated 17.01.2023 passed
by the Director, Special Projects, Panchayati Raj & D.W. Department-
cum-Appellate Authority in Appeal Case No.11 of 2022 confirming the
order of the Collector dated 17.01.2023.
4. The Collector being dissatisfied with the reply to the show-cause
notice issued to the Appellant-petitioner disengaged him from the post of
Gram Rozgar Sevak. The said order of disengagement was after the
Appellant-Petitioner was issued with show-cause notice on 21.07.2017, to
which he replied. The show-cause notice was considered. The report of
the Block Development Officer, Bolangir dated 17.07.2017 that form the
basis of the show-cause notice was also considered and order of
disengagement was passed. Thereafter, by order dated 11.11.2022 the
learned Single Judge of this Court granted liberty to the Petitioner to
approach the appellate authority, i.e. Director, Special Projects, Panchayati
Raj & D.W. Department-cum-Appellate Authority to consider the appeal
of the Appellant-petitioner, but it was dismissed there, which has been
challenged in this writ appeal.
5. We have perused the judgment passed by the learned Single Judge.
The judgment has taken note of all the factual aspects. The details of it,
such as the opportunity of hearing having been granted to the Appellant-
Petitioner at all stages, the initial enquiry, the enquiry before
disengagement, the appellate order, the statements of the compliance
regarding allegation that the Appellant-petitioner had retained the Pass-
Book, ATM Cards of the beneficiaries. The Appellant-petitioner had not
offered any explanation for transfer of money to his account from several
beneficiaries, such as Chandramani Kuanra, Suresh Suna, etc.
6. It is submitted by Mr. Mishra, learned counsel for the Appellant that
adequate opportunity of hearing has not been granted to the Appellant-
petitioner. He relies on the decision of the Apex Court rendered in
Narinder Mohan Arya vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. And Ors.,
(Civil Appeal No. 7645 of 2004, decided on 05.04.2006). On being
pointedly asked whether the Appellant-petitioner's services are governed
by any Service Condition, Rules or Circulars, it is fairly stated by the
learned counsel for the Appellant-petitioner that there is no such Rules or
Circular, in as much as the Petitioner had entered into an agreement with
the Sarpanch of the Gram Panchayat to work as Gram Rozgar Sevak.
Apart from that, we find the decision relied upon by the learned counsel
for the Appellant-petitioner has no relevance and applicability as far as the
present case is concerned. The authorities at all stages have adhered to the
principles of natural justice, giving adequate opportunity to the Appellant-
petitioner. Learned Single Judge has gone at length to deal with all the
aspects including compliance with the principle of natural justice. We
further notice that the Petitioner has not shown actual prejudice even
before the learned Single Judge or before the appellate authority with
reference to the enquiry that was conducted before disengaging him from
service. We do not find any legal infirmity in the order passed by the
learned Single Judge.
7. Having heard the learned counsel for the Appellant and considering
the grievance of the parties on record, we are not inclined to interfere with
the judgment dated 26th July, 2024 passed by the learned Single Judge in
W.P.(C) No. 2725 of 2023, the said judgment being just and proper.
8. Accordingly, the Writ Appeal is dismissed, being devoid of merit.
(Manash Ranjan Pathak)
Judge
Digitally Signed Judge
Designation: ADR-cum-Addl. Principal Secretary
Reason: Authentic Copy
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
Date: S.K.
22-Sep-2025
Parida16:58:53
