[Cites 0, Cited by 0]
Orissa High Court
Mandakini Dei vs State Of Odisha & Ors. ..... Opposite ... on 25 March, 2026
Author: Aditya Kumar Mohapatra
Bench: Aditya Kumar Mohapatra
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
WP(C) No.9177 of 2026
Mandakini Dei ..... Petitioner
Represented by Adv. -
Mihir Kanta Rath
-versus-
State Of Odisha & Ors. ..... Opposite Parties
Represented by Adv. -
Mr. S.K.Parhi, A.S.C.
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADITYA KUMAR
MOHAPATRA
ORDER
Order No. 25.03.2026
03. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement
(Virtual /Physical Mode).
2. Heard learned counsel for the Petitioner as well as learned
Additional Standing Counsel for the State-Opposite Parties.
Perused the writ application as well as the prayer made therein.
3. The Petitioner has filed the present writ application with
the following prayer:
"It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that your
Lordship may graciously be pleased to admit this writ
application and issue Rule NISI to the opp.parties to
show cause as to why they shall not be directed to
consider the case of the petitioner after verifying the
genuineness of the Educational Certificates produced
by her and reinstate into her service within a stipulated
period and further why a direction shall not be issued to
the Block Education Officer, Laxmipur (Opp.party
No.5) to consider and dispose of the appeal dated
04.01.2024 which has been remitted by the District
Education Officer, Koraput within a stipulated period.
And on their failing to show cause or showing
insufficient cause, the said Rule be made absolute by
issuing appropriate writ(s);
And pass such further order(s) as may be deemed
fit and proper;"
4. Learned counsel for the Petitioner at the outset contended
that the Petitioner was initially selected and engaged as Swechha
Sevi Sikhya Sahayak at Pipalapadar Primary School on
30.12.2003. On 01.01.2006, the Petitioner was again re-engaged
as a Junior Teacher. He further contended that the service of the
Petitioner was regularised as an Assistant Teacher Level-V
w.e.f. 09.01.2011. While working as such, the Petitioner was
served with a memorandum of charge on 16.07.2021. In the
pending departmental proceeding, the Petitioner submitted an
application for supply of relevant document on 09.08.2021.
While this was the position another additional memorandum of
charge was served on the Petitioner on 24.08.2021. Finally, the
Petitioner filed her written Statement on 07.09.2021.
5. While the matter stood thus, during the pendency of the
aforesaid departmental proceeding, the Opposite Party No.5
withheld the salary of the present Petitioner vide order dated
21.09.2021. Thereafter, the Opposite Party did not allow the
Petitioner to discharge her duties w.e.f. 05.10.2021. A show
cause notice was issued by the Opposite Party No.5 to the
Petitioner on 21.10.2021. While this was the position, the
Inquiring Officer conducted an inquiry and in the absence of the
Petitioner and recommended major punishment of dismissal
from service by virtue of the report dated 31.01.2022.
6. Learned counsel for the Petitioner at this juncture
contended that being aggrieved by the inquiry report dated
31.01.2022, the Petitioner earlier approached this Court by filing
W.P.(C) No.41789 of 2023, the said writ application was
disposed of by a Coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated
21.12.2023, granting liberty to the Petitioner to approach the
Appellate Authority. Pursuant to such order, the Petitioner
preferred an appeal before the Opposite Party No.4. He further
contended that the Petitioner was once again compelled to
approach this Court by filing W.P.(C) No.21247 of 2024 which
was disposed of vide order dated 02.09.2024 directing the
Opposite Party No.4 to dispose of the appeal within a period of
six months. Since the order was not carried out, the Petitioner
was compelled to file CONTC No.1261 of 2025 which was
disposed of vide order dated 15.05.2025 granting further one
month's time to the Opposite Party No.4 to conclude the pending
proceeding against the Petitioner. Finally, the Appellate
Authority disposed of the appeal vide order dated 20.08.2025 at
Annexure-11 to the writ application.
7. Learned counsel for the Petitioner at this juncture
contended that the Appellate Authority by virtue of the order
dated 20.08.2025 at Annexure-11 disposed of the appeal
granting liberty to the Petitioner to approach the Block
Education Officer, Laxmipur by filing a detailed representation
with regard to the genuineness of the certificate produced by the
Petitioner from the concerned Board/University with a
corresponding direction to the Block Education Officer to re-
examine the same and take a final decision thereon. Since no
final decision has been taken by the B.E.O-Opposite Party No.5,
pursuant to the order dated 20.08.2025 passed by the Appellate
Authority-Opposite Party No.4, the Petitioner has approached
this Court by filing the present writ application.
8. Learned counsel for the State on the other hand contended
that although he has no specific instruction in the matter,
however, on a perusal of the pleadings made in the writ
application, it appears that the dispute with regard to the
genuineness of the certificate produced by the Petitioner is still
pending before the Opposite Party No.5 for consideration. He
further submitted that the Appellate Authority-Opposite Party
No.4 vide order dated 20.08.2025 at Annexure-11 has already
given a direction to the Opposite Party No.5 to consider the
grievance of the Petitioner. He further submitted that in the event
no final decision has been taken by the Opposite Party No.5 in
the meantime, he will have no objection if this Court directs the
Opposite Party No.5 to dispose of the representation of the
Petitioner in terms of the order dated 20.08.2025 at Annexure-11
within a stipulated period of time.
9. Considering the submissions made by the learned counsels
appearing for the respective parties, on a careful examination of
the background facts, further taking note of the order dated
20.08.2025 at Annexure-11, this Court is of the view that since
the dispute is pending before the Opposite Party No.5 for final
adjudication, the present writ application can very well be
disposed of by directing the Opposite Party No.5 to take a final
decision as directed by the Opposite Party No.4 vide order dated
20.08.2025 at Annexure-11, after providing an opportunity of
hearing to the Petitioner within a period of eight weeks from the
date of communication of a copy of today's order. The final
decision so taken by the Opposite Paty No.4 be communicated to
the Petitioner within ten days from the date of taking such
decision.
10. With the aforesaid observation, the writ application stands
disposed of.
11. Issue urgent certified copy of this order as per Rules.
( A.K. Mohapatra )
Judge
Rubi
