[Cites 0, Cited by 0]
Orissa High Court
Sujit Kumar Nayak vs State Of Odisha And Others .... Opposite ... on 17 April, 2026
Author: R.K. Pattanaik
Bench: R.K. Pattanaik
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
W.P.(C) No. 14646 of 2020
Sujit Kumar Nayak .... Petitioner
Mr. B. S. Tripathy, Senior Advocate
-Versus-
State of Odisha and others .... Opposite Parties
Mr. S. Panda, ASC
CORAM:
MR. JUSTICE R.K. PATTANAIK
ORDER
17.04.2026
Order No.
06. 1. Heard Mr. Tripathy, learned Senior Advocate for the
petitioner and Mr. Panda, learned ASC for the State.
2. Instant writ petition is filed by the petitioner assailing the
impugned decision and order dated 19th June, 2020 as at
Annexure-6 on the grounds stated and further to direct the
opposite parties and in particular, opposite party No.4 to allow
him to perform is duty after quashment of the order with any
such directions issued as deemed just and proper in the facts and
circumstances of the case.
3. Mr. Tripathy, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the
petitioner would submit that the petitioner joined as a Data Entry
Operator-cum-Assistant on contractual basis vide Annexure-1
series and thereafter, removed from service with the order of
disengagement as per Annexure-6 without any show cause
notice issued with a reply and response received from him. It is
submitted that the principles of natural justice have not been
followed in the case of the petitioner and therefore, the order of
termination dated 19th June, 2020 vide Annexure-6 is per se
illegal and hence, liable to be interfered with and quashed.
4. On the contrary, Mr. Panda, learned ASC for the State
referring to the counter affidavit would submit that serious
irregularities were committed by the petitioner and hence, the
action was followed. It is further submitted that in view of the
terms of the service of the petitioner as per Annexure-1 series,
action was followed with his disengagement on proof of such
irregularities and therefore, the impugned order i.e. Annexure-6
is perfectly justified and in accordance with law.
5. In course of hearing, Mr. Tripathy, learned Senior
Advocate for the petitioner cited the following decisions, such
as, Director General of Police and others Vrs. Mrityunjoy
Sarkar and others AIR 1997 Supreme Court 249; State of
Orissa Vrs. Dr. (Miss) Binapani Dei and others AIR 1967 SC
1269; U.P. State Road Transport Corporation and others
Vrs. Brijesh Kumar and another 2024 INSC 638;
Bichitrananda Barik Vrs. State of Odisha and others of this
Court in W.P.(C) No.10146 of 2018 dated 21st February, 2023;
Sunita Sahu Vrs. Principal Secy., to Govt. of Odisha and
others in W.P.(C) (OAS) No.12 of 2018 dated 9th September,
2022 and finally, State of Odisha and another Vrs. Sunita
Sahu in WA No.677 of 2023 dated 18th March, 2025 to submit
that even in a case of a contractual employee, the principles of
natural justice are to be adhered to.
6. In Brijesh Kumar (supra), the Apex Court held and
observed as to following extracted herein below:
"19. The services of the respondent have been
determined solely on the ground of
misconduct as alleged but without holding
any regular inquiry or affording any
opportunity of hearing to him. The
termination order has been passed on the basis
of some report which probably was not even
supplied to the respondent. No show cause
notice appears to have been issued to the
respondent. Therefore, the order of
termination of his services, even if on
contractual basis, has been passed on account
of alleged misconduct without following the
Principles of Natural Justice. The termination
order is apparently stigmatic in nature which
could not have been passed without following
the Principles of Natural Justice.
20. In the light of the above facts and
discussion, we are of the opinion that the
order dated 30.01.2016 terminating the
services of the respondent is bad in law and
cannot be sustained. It has rightly been set
aside though on a different ground that the
respondent is a permanent employee having
been appointed on compassionate basis. The
appointment of the respondent, in fact, is a
contractual appointment entitling him to
continue as such in service and to claim
regularization if so advised in accordance
with law."
In the above decision, the order of termination service
was set aside even on account of misconduct for having
not followed the principles of natural justice even though
engagement was on contractual basis.
7. This Court in Bichitrananda Barik (supra) concluded
that the argument that there is no need for compliance of the rules
of procedure before disengagement of a contractual employee is
unacceptable since the settle position of the law is that even in
respect of any such employee, principles of natural justice are to
be observed. The decision in Sunita Sahu (supra) of this Court
on similar ground related to termination of service of a
contractual employee was upheld by Division Bench in WA
No.677 of 2023. In response to the above, Mr. Panda, learned
ASC for the State would submit that in view of the undertaking
furnished by the petitioner as per Annexure-B/4 to the counter
affidavit, the order of termination is according to law. It is
submitted that the petitioner was liable to termination at any time
in case of misconduct prooved. But considering the case laws
cited above, the Court is inclined to hold that the petitioner even
though a contractual employee was entitled to a show cause
notice. The grounds upon which the petitioner had been removed
from service as made to reveal from the counter affidavit filed
through opposite party No.4 cannot justify the action of removal
in view of the settled position of law discussed herein above. In
other words, the impugned decision of opposite party No.4 vide
Annexure-6 cannot be held as lawful for the reason that the
petitioner was not allowed to respond on the alleged
irregularities with a show cause notice and in absence of
principles of natural justice not being followed before such
disengagement. In view of the position of law discussed earlier,
the Court is of the ultimate view that the impugned order vide
Annexure-6 cannot be justified. As a necessary corollary, it is to
be held that the petitioner is entitled to a hearing with the show
cause notice issued to him for a reply and response to the
irregularities alleged against him by opposite party No.4.
8. Accordingly, it is ordered.
9. In the result, the writ petition stands allowed as a logical
sequitur, the impugned order dated 19th June, 2020 as per
Annexure-6 is hereby quashed with a direction to opposite party
No.4 to call upon the petitioner to submit the show cause with a
notice served on him and thereafter, to proceed to consider the
same and to take a decision thereon in accordance with law
concluding the exercise at the earliest preferably within a period
of eight weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order.
Until such decision arrived at by opposite party No.4, it is further
directed that the petitioner shall be reinstated in the
establishment of opposite party No.5. It is made clear that such
reinstatement is only for a purpose and for enabling the petitioner
to file a reply and to respond to the misconduct alleged against
him by opposite party No.4.
10. Urgent copy of this order be issued as per rules.
Designation: Junior Stenographer
(R.K. Pattanaik)
Location: OHC, CTC
Date: 22-Apr-2026 18:21:00
Judge
Rojina
