[Cites 2, Cited by 0]
Orissa High Court
State Of Odisha And Others vs Pravasini Sahoo on 2 February, 2026
Author: Chittaranjan Dash
Bench: Chittaranjan Dash
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
W.A. No.1357 of 2024
State of Odisha and others .... Appellants
Mr. J. Khandayatray, ASC
-Versus-
Pravasini Sahoo .... Respondent
Mr. Sarada Prasad Dash, Advocate
CORAM:
JUSTICE DIXIT KRISHNA SHRIPAD
JUSTICE CHITTARANJAN DASH
ORDER
Order No. 02.02.2026
04.
This Intra-Court Appeal by the State and its functionaries
seeks to lay a challenge to learned Single Judge's order dated
17.01.2024 whereby Respondent's WPC (OA) No.430 of 2017
having been favoured, a direction has been issued for her
reinstatement in service.
2. Learned ASC appearing for the Appellants vehemently argues
that the impugned order of the learned Single Judge is liable to be
voided, inasmuch as the principles of service jurisprudence have
been violated; secondly, non-furnishing of inquiry report per se
cannot be a ground for setting aside the punishment order in the
absence of demonstrable prejudice caused thereby. He also tells the
Court that the Respondent, being a temporary employee, is not
entitled to the amount of protection which a regular/permanent
employee will be; this aspect having not been adverted to by the
learned Single Judge, there is error apparent on the face of the record
and therefore, this Court should interfere.
3. Learned counsel representing the Respondent vehemently
opposes the Appeal making submission in justification of the
impugned order and reasons on which it has been constructed. He
draws our attention to the contents of Paragraph 8.2 where the
learned Single Judge has mentioned about non-service of inquiry
report and therefore, the reasoning of the learned Single Judge is
consistent with the observation of the Apex Court in Union of India
vs. Mohd. Ramzan Khan, AIR 1991 SC 471 and Managing
Director, ECIL vs. B. Karunakar, AIR 1994 SC 1074. He also tells
us that the attendance register was called for and that the same was
manipulated by interpolations, which aspect has been discussed by
the learned Single Judge at Paragraph 8.1. So contending, he seeks
dismissal of the Appeal.
4. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having
perused the Appeal papers, this Court declines indulgence in the
matter broadly agreeing with the reasoning of the learned Single
Judge on which he has structured the impugned order. We also add
the following grounds, which are elaborated as under:
4.1 The inquiry in question is fraught with infirmities, inasmuch
as the same was adjourned on 17.03.2016 sine die and thereafter no
date was given by sending notice of appearance to the Respondent-
employee. Thus, whatever proceedings have been held after the
cutoff date of 17.03.2016, have to be treated as null & void, the same
having been held in absentia.
4.2 An opportunity to the Appellants was given by the learned
Single Judge vide his interim order dated 11.12.2023 to produce the
records to vouch their contention to the contrary, however, no such
production was effected. That would add to the advantage of the
Respondent.
4.3 The vehement submission of learned counsel appearing for the
Respondent-employee that his client had appeared in the
examination 1st year, 2nd year & 3rd year of the course gains
acceptance, inasmuch as he repeats before us that no course
certificate has been secured by his client. We assume this to be true
because those who do not attend the classes but write the
examinations, may not be entitled to grant of certificate. If certificate
is not granted, learned counsel for the Respondent has rightly
pointed out that Court can assume that it is because of absence or
shortage of attendance, nothing contrary having been indicated from
the side of the Appellant.
4.4 Lastly, what the learned Single Judge has observed at
Paragraphs 8.1 & 8.2 in the impugned order, being relevant, is
reproduced:
"8.1. It is also found from the record that in the absentee
statement submitted by the Petitioner for the month of December,
2013 and December, 2014, Petitioner clearly indicated that she
was on leave on the date of examination so fixed. But it is found
from Annexure-E, all those relevant dates in the absentee
statement for the month of December, 2013 have been overwritten
and the same does not match with the handwriting of the
Petitioner. It is also found that along with the notice issued by the
Opp. Party No.1 on 08.03.2016, copy of the enquiry report which
was relied by Opp. Party No. 1 to pass the impugned order on
07.04.2016 was never provided to the Petitioner. It is also found
that after 17.03.2016, no further date was fixed with issuance of
any notice. Pursuant to the order passed by this Court on
11.12.2023, learned AGA also failed to produce any notice
showing fixation of the date to 07.04.2016 before Opp. Party No.
1.
8.2. In view of such material irregularity which is apparent on the
face of the record, this Court is inclined to quash the order of
termination so passed against the Petitioner vide order
dtd.07.04.2016 under Annexure-5. While quashing the same, this
Court directs Opp. Party No.1 to reinstate the Petitioner in her
service. The break period of the service be regularized as due and
admissible on such reinstatement of the Petitioner. Opp. Party-
No. 2 is directed to issue an order of reinstatement within a period
two week (2) weeks from the date of receipt of this order.
Petitioner is directed to produce a copy of this order before Opp.
Party No. 1 for compliance."
In the above circumstances, this Appeal being devoid of
merits is liable to be dismissed and accordingly it is, costs having
been made easy. In the circumstances, we make it clear that the
Respondent-employee shall not be entitled to any back wages.
Web copy of the order to be acted upon by all concerned.
( Dixit Krishna Shripad )
Judge
( Chittaranjan Dash )
Judge
AKPradhan
Signed by: ANANTA KUMAR PRADHAN
Designation: Senior Stenographer
Reason: Authentication
Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA
Date: 02-Feb-2026 18:58:21
