[Cites 5, Cited by 0]
Orissa High Court
Suchitra Mohapatra vs State Of Odisha Represented Through Its on 20 February, 2026
Author: Chittaranjan Dash
Bench: Chittaranjan Dash
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
W.A No. 612 of 2025
In the matter of an appeal under Clause 10 of the Letters
Patent of Patna High Court read with Article 4 of the
Orissa High Court Order, 1948 and Chapter-III, Rule 6 of
Orissa High Court Rules, 1948 from order dated
04.07.2023 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.(C)
No. 19016 of 2023.
----
Suchitra Mohapatra .... Appellant
-versus-
1. State of Odisha represented through its
Commissioner- cum-Secretary, Govt. of Odisha
Department of School & Mass Education,
Bhubaneswar
2. The Director of Elementary Education, Odisha,
Bhubaneswar, Khurda
3. The Collector-cum-Chief Executive Officer, Zilla
Parisad, Gajapati, Paralakhemundi (Gajapati)
4. District Project Co-ordinator, Samagra Sikshya,
Gajapati, Parlakhemundi (Gajapati)
5. Block Education Officer, Mohana, Dist-Gajapati
...Respondents
Advocates Appeared in this case
For Appellant - M/s. Santosh Kumar Swain &
S.C. Bairiganjan, Advocates
Page 1 of 8
For Respondents - Mr. S.B. Mohanty, AGA
---
CORAM :
MR. JUSTICE KRISHNA SHRIPAD DIXIT
MR. JUSTICE CHITTARANJAN DASH
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Date of Hearing & Judgment : 20.02.2026
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PER KRISHNA S. DIXIT, J.
This Intra-Court appeal by a Sikhya Sahayak i.e. teacher,
who having abandoned her service was disengaged from the
post, now seeks to lay challenge to a Learned Single Judge's
order dated 04.07.2023 whereby her W.P(C) No. 19016 of 2023
was negatived essentially with the following observation:
"3. The petitioner has filed this writ petition challenging the
disengagement order vide No. 1922 dated 20.10.2020 passed
by Chief Executive Officer-cum- Collector, Zillaparisad,
Gajapati on the ground of unauthorized absence since
20.06.2013 till date.
4. During course of hearing, learned counsel for the
petitioner has failed to produce any authorization letter with
respect to long unauthorized absent before the Court. Hence,
this Court does not find any infirmity in the order passed by
the District Project Office, RTE-SSA, Gajapati. Accordingly
the writ petition is dismissed."
2. Ld. Counsel appearing for the Appellant vehemently
argues that his client was appointed as Sikhya Sahayak for
Upper Primary School, Gobindapur vide Engagement letter
No. 819 dated 20.04.2011; she was disengaged from service
vide order dated 20.10.2020; she had filed a representation to
rescind disengagement on 12.01.2021; the same having not
been considered duly, there was a choate cause of action on
which the Appeal was structured; however Ld. Single Judge
having not treated the same in right perspective, indulgence of
this Court is eminently warranted. Ld. AGA appearing for the
State & its officials per contra opposes the appeal making
submissions in justification of the order. He contends that the
Appellant's Disengagement Order is valid on account of long
unauthorized absence from service. The said Order issued by
Respondent No. 3 reads as under:
"Disengagement Order
Smt. Suchitra Mahapatra, Sikshya Sahayak, UPS
Govindapur is long and unauthorized absence since 20
06.2013 for whatsoever the reason the very purpose of her
engagement was defeated. Moreover, their curricular
progress suffered the most, which is unrecoverable loss and
that cannot be fulfilled by the authorities.
That her unauthorized absence in assignment has led
to the breach of terms and conditions as stipulated in the
contract agreement and contractual engagement order.
That consequent upon the above reasons and as per
Para no. 4.4 of Government Resolution No. H-SME/LMC-
150/06-637/SME dated 10.01.2008 of School and Mass
Education Deptt. Odisha, Smt. Suchitra Mahapatra is hereby
disengaged from the post of Sikshya Sahayak w.e.f the date of
issue of this order.
By the order of
Collector-cum-CEO. ZP, Ganjam
Sd/-..."
3. Having heard learned counsel for the parties
and having perused the appeal papers, we decline
indulgence in the matter for the following reasons:
3.1. The Appellant sought intervention of Appellate
Court after brooking a long delay of 592 days. An application
is filed in I.A No. 1570 of 2025 supported by an Affidavit
seeking its condonation. A perusal of the same does not make
out a plausible explanation for the long delay. Casual facts are
stated, that would happen in the routine way bureaucracy.
Condoning delay on such explanation would amount to
defeating the statutory purpose of prescribing limitation.
Therefore, the application is liable to be rejected. However, we
would like to undertake examination of matter on merits.
3.2. The Appellant has unauthorisedly abandoned her
service as teacher from 20.06.2013; i.e. roughly for a long
period of 7 years. A formal Disengagement Order came to be
issued on 20.10.2020. It is clear that she has made no attempt
whatsoever in these 7 years to resume her duty. She never
bothered about the fate of school children, whom she had to
teach. On the contrary, she was more bothered about her
family. What difficulty the community of taught would be put
to for want of a teacher leads one to a wild imagination. It is
more so in this competitive age. Teachers are revered as
builders of nation. Such is the importance any civilized society
would attach to the teaching job more particularly that are
meant for tender minds. Therefore, our scriptures say
'gurubhyo namah', literally meaning 'salutations to the teacher'.
The 11th President of India, late Dr. APJ Abdul Kalam (1931-
2015) has said:
"Teaching is a very noble profession that shapes the
character, caliber, and future of an individual..."
The conduct of delinquent Appellant militantly falls short of
the obtaining standards and therefore she cannot be granted
any relief in Constitutional Jurisdiction. Such a person cannot
seek writ remedy provided under the Constitution of India.
3.3. The Respondent No. 3 having considered conscious
abandonment of solemn duties by the Appellant has rightly
issued a formal order of removal. It hardly needs to be stated
that the vinculum juris of employer-employee comes to an end
by removal, resignation, death in harness, retirement,
determination of tenure or abandonment of duties with no
intent to resume. That is how standard treatises on service
jurisprudence and labour jurisprudence say. Samaraditya Pal
on 'Law Relating to Public Service' 3rd Edition LexisNexis
treats the subject at pages 985 & 986.
3.4. The Apex Court in G.T. Lad v. Chemical & Fibres of
India Ltd., (1979) 1 SCC 590, has observed as under:
"In the Act, we do not find any definition of the expression
'abandonment of serv- ice'. In the absence of any clue as to the
meaning of the said expression, we have to depend on meaning
assigned to it in the dictionary of English language. In the un-
abridged edition of the Random House Dictionary, the word
'abandon' has been ex- plained as meaning 'to leave completely and
finally; forsake utterly; to relinquish, re- nounce; to give up all
concern in something'. According to the Dictionary of English Law
by Earl Jowitt (1959 edition) 'abandonment' means 'relinquishment
of an interest or claim'. According to Black's Law Dictionary
'abandonment' when used in relation to an office means 'voluntary
relinquishment'. It must be total and under such circum- stances as
clearly to indicate an absolute relinquishment. The failure to perform
the duties pertaining to the office must be with actual or imputed
intention, on the part of the officer to abandon and relinquish the
office. The intention may be inferred from the acts and conduct of the
party, and is a question of fact. Temporary absence is not ordinarily
sufficient to constitute an 'abandonment of office'."
What has been observed hereinabove aptly applies to the case
of Appellant and therefore, the impugned order being
inarticulately animated with the same cannot be faltered.
3.5. The Apex Court in State of Punjab v. Dr. P.L Singla1 has
observed as under:
"Where the employee who is unauthorisedly absent does not
report back to duty and offer any satisfactory explanation, or
where the explanation offered by the employee is not
satisfactory, the employer will take recourse to disciplinary
action in regard to the unauthorized absence. Such
disciplinary proceedings may lead to imposition of
. (2008) 8 SCC 469.
punishment ranging from a major penalty like dismissal or
removal from service to a minor penalty like withholding of
increments without cumulative effect. The extent of penalty
will depend upon the nature of service, the position held by
the employee, the period of absence and the cause/explanation
for the absence."
3.6. In Government of India v. George Philip2, it has
been observed as under:
"In a case involving overstay of leave and absence from duty,
granting six months' time to join duty amounts to not only
giving premium to indiscipline but is wholly subversive of
the work culture in the organization. Article 51-A(j) of the
Constitution lays down that it shall be the duty of every
citizen to strive towards excellence in all spheres of
individual and collective activity so that the nation
constantly rises to higher levels of endeavour and
achievement. This cannot be achieved unless the employees
maintain discipline and devotion to duty. Courts should not
pass such orders which instead of achieving the underlying
spirit and objects of Part IV-A of the Constitution have the
tendency to negate or destroy the same."
Abandonment of duties for long time creates lot many
difficulties in any employment, hardly needs to be stated.
Therefore, the same becomes intolerable more particularly in
the realm of teaching. Abandoners therefore, are not favoured
by Courts subject to all just exceptions into which argued case
of the Appellant does not fit. Abandonment has to be
ascertained or construed on the basis of the delinquent's
conduct and other circumstances such as, the length of absence,
undesirable consequences of absence, nature of the job,
. (2006) 13 SCC 1.
plausibility of explanation offered, length of service put in, etc.
Since, abandonment per se causes cessation of employment, the
order of removal entered following such abandonment is
formal in character. Such an order does not bring about
cessation, but only places on record the factum of cessation of
vinculum juris. The umbilical cord thus gets separated by the act
of employee and the subsequent order at the hands of
employer only recognizes this factum. In other words the order
is not constitutive of abandonment but only evidentiary. This
subtle difference has to be kept in mind by the stake holders
while operating with the cases of abandonment. Otherwise, the
interest of public service may be prejudiced.
In the above circumstances, this Appeal being
thoroughly devoid of merits is liable to be dismissed
and accordingly it is, costs having been made easy.
(Krishna Shripad Dixit)
Judge
(Chittaranjan Dash)
Judge
SignedHigh Court, Cuttack
The PRASANT KUMAR
20th day of February, SAHOO
2026/Prasant
Reason: Authentication
Location: Orissa High Court
Date: 26-Feb-2026 16:39:32
