[Cites 2, Cited by 0]

Orissa High Court

Jyotshnamayee Dash vs State Of Odisha on 9 February, 2026

                            IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

                                       W.P. C.(T) No.104 of 2011
                     (In the matter of an application under Articles 226 and 227 of the
                   Constitution of India)



                    Jyotshnamayee Dash                       ....                  Petitioner
                                                 -versus-
                    State of Odisha, Odisha and others       ....           Opposite Parties


                   Appeared in this case:-
                         For Petitioner           :          Mr. P.K. Mohapatra, Advocate

                    For Opposite Parties          :                Mr. Gyanaloka Mohanty,
                                                                  Learned Standing Counsel

                    CORAM:
                    JUSTICE A.C. BEHERA

                                            JUDGMENT

Date of hearing : 27.01.2026 / date of judgment : 09.02.2026

A.C. Behera, J. The prayer of the petitioner in this writ petition is for quashing the

Annexures-10 and 11 and to direct the Opposite Parties to regularize the

service of the petitioner treating the period of her service from

09.12.2005 to 06.03.2008 as her duties.

2. The factual backgrounds of this matter are that, the petitioner

joined as an Assistant Teacher in Kundaposhi UGUP School. As per

Office Order dated 07.12.2005, she joined at Telitileimal UGUP School on transfer, but, her such transfer order was cancelled two days after her

joining at Telitileimal UGUP School. To which, she(petitioner)

challenged by filing O.A. No.101(C) of 2006(Annexure-2). As per an

interim order passed in O.A. No.101(C) of 2006, she(petitioner) was

allowed to continue in that Telitileimal UGUP School. On the basis of

the final order dated 12.02.2008 passed in that O.A. No.101(C) of 2006,

she(petitioner) was relived from there and joined in Lad UGUP School

on dated 07.03.2008. On the basis of some allegations alleged against

her(petitioner), as per Anenxure-6, charges were framed against her by

her authorities as per Rule-15 of OCS(CC&A) Rules and an enquiry was

conducted for the same and an enquiry report vide Annexure-7 was

submitted on dated 09.09.2008. On the basis of such enquiry report vide

Anenxure-7, her authority passed an order of punishment under

Annexure-10 against her(petitioner) and as per such punishment,

she(petitioner) was "censured and the period from 19.12.2005 to

06.03.2008 of her service was treated as leave due"

3. On being dissatisfied with such order passed by the disciplinary

authority as per Annexre-10, she(petitioner) preferred an appeal vide

O.A. No.1119(C) of 2009 being the appellant before the appellate

authority, i.e., Director, Elementary Education, Orissa, Bhubaneswar.

4. The date of hearing of the said appeal vide O.A. No.1119(C) of

2009 was fixed to 25.05.2010, but, due to some personal difficulties and

inconveniences of the petitioner, she(petitioner) prayed for an

adjournment of hearing of that appeal on that day, i.e., on 25.05.2010 and

requested to the appellate authority for an adjournment of hearing of that

appeal to some other date and sent a Telegram vide Annexure-12 praying

for fixing the date of hearing of that appeal to some other date, but, the

appellate authority, i.e., Director, Elementary Education, Orissa,

Bhubaneswar did not grant any adjournment of hearing of the appeal and

heard the said appeal on that day, i.e., 25.05.2010 even in absence of the

petitioner and disposed of the same as per Annexure.11

confirming/concurring the order passed by the disciplinary authority in

Annexure-10.

5. On being aggrieved with the said impugned order of the appellate

authority vide Annexure-11 passed in O.A. No.1119(C) of 2009,

she(petitioner) challenged the same by filing the T. No.104 of 2011

before the Odisha Administrative Tribunal, Bhubaneswar against the

Opposite Parties including the appellate authority(Respondent No.2), but,

due to the abolition of Odisha Administrative Tribunal, the T. No.104 of

2011 filed by the petitioner came to the High Court for hearing and in the

High Court, the said T. No.104 of 2011 has been renumbered as W.P.C.

(T) No.104 of 2011.

6. I have already heard from the learned counsel for the petitioner

and learned Standing Counsel for the State on behalf of all the Opposite

Parties.

7. It appears from the impugned order vide Annexure-11 passed in

O.A. No.1119 (C) of 2009 that, the date of hearing of the appeal vide

O.A. No.1119 (C) of 2009 was fixed to 25.05.2010, but on that date, the

petitioner(appellant) was not present, for which, in absence of the

petitioner, the said appeal was heard and disposed of by the Opposite

Party No.2 as per the impugned order vide Annexure-11 against

her(petitioner) confirming/concurring the order passed by the disciplinary

authority in Annexure-10.

8. It is the case of the petitioner that, due to her some personal

difficulties and inconveniences, she was not able to appear before the

appellate authority on the date fixed for hearing, i.e., on dated

25.05.2010, for which, she(petitioner/appellant) had sent a Telegram vide

Annexure-12 to the appellate authority(Opposite Party No.2/Respondent

No.2) requesting him for an adjournment of hearing of the appeal to

some other date, but, in spite of that, the appellate authority, i.e.

Respondent No.2 heard the appeal in her absence and disposed of the

same as per Annexure-11. For which, she(petitioner) has challenged that

Annexure-11 praying for quashing the same on the ground of non-

compliance of the principles of natural justice, i.e., on the ground of non-

allowing her(petitioner) to participate in the hearing of the appeal and

non-consideration of her requests for an adjournment made through

Telegram vide Annexure-12.

9. The Annexure-12(telegram made by the petitioner to the appellate

authority, i.e., Director, Elementary Education, Orissa, Bhubaneswar,

Opposite Party No.2) is going to show about the cause and reason of

absence of the petitioner on the date of hearing of her appeal vide O.A.

No.1119 (C) of 2009 on dated 25.05.2010 before the appellate authority

(Opposite Party No.2).

10. The impugned order vide Annexure-11 passed by the appellate

authority in O.A. No.1119(C) of 2009 does not reveal about the taking up

of the telegram vide Annexure-12 of the petitioner into consideration,

though it was obligatory on the part of the appellate authority(Opposite

Party No.2/Respondent No.2) to take the telegram vide Annexure-12 of

the petitioner into consideration and to pass order in respect of the

acceptance or non-acceptance of the same. Therefore, total non-

consideration of Anenxure-12(Telegram) of the petitioner by the

appellate authority(Opposite Party No.2/Respondent No.2) is a violation

of the principles of natural justice.

11. It is very fundamental in law that, if the hearing of any case or

appeal is made without complying the principles of natural justice, then,

the said hearing as well as order on the basis of that hearing cannot be

sustainable under law.

12. On this aspect, the propositions of law has already been clarified in

the following decisions:-

(i) In a case between A.R. Antuley vrs. R.S. Nayak and another : reported in (1988) 2 SCC-602(Para-55) that,

Violation of principles of natural justice renders the act a nullity.

(ii) In a case between Niranjan Tripathy vrs. Regional Manager, The New India Assurance Company Ltd. and another :

reported in 2015(II) OLR-898 that,

Even if, there is no provision for compliance of principles of natural justice, it implies that, before taking any action, principles of natural justice has to be complied with by affording opportunity of hearing to the parties otherwise action is open to challenge and the said order shall be in violation of Article-14 of the Constitution of India.

(iii) In a case between M/s. Utkal Palyweave Industries Pvt. Ltd.

vrs. Regional Director, Employees' State Insurance Corporation and others : reported in 2015(II) OLR-269 that,

Even an administrative order, which involves civil consequences must consistent with principles of natural justice.

(iv) In a case between Durgawati Singh and others vrs. Deputy Firms, Societies and Chits Lucknow and others : reported in Special Appeal No.497 of 2021(Allahabad) that,

Whenever an order is struck down as invalid being inviolation of principles of natural justice, there is no final decision of the case and fresh proceeding are left open.

13. As per discussions and observations made above, when, it is held

that, the hearing of the appeal vide O.A. No.1119 (C) of 2009 was taken

up by the Opposite Party No.2 on dated 25.05.2010 in absence of the

appellant(petitioner in this writ petition) without complying the

principles of natural justice, then at this juncture, the said hearing as well

as the impugned order vide Annexure-11 on the basis of that hearing

cannot be sustainable under law. The same are liable to be quashed.

14. Therefore, there is merit in the writ petition filed by the petitioner.

The same is to be allowed.

15. In result, the writ petition is allowed.

The impugned order vide Annexure-11 passed in O.A. No.1119(C)

of 2009 by the Director, Elementary Education, Orissa,