School For Deaf vs State Of Odisha & Ors. ..... Opposite ... on 30 March, 2026

Author: Aditya Kumar Mohapatra

Bench: Aditya Kumar Mohapatra

                 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
                                WP(C) No.29932 of 2024
            School For Deaf, Managed By       .....    Petitioner
            General Secy, Patitapaban Seva
            Sangha, Puri
                                                           Represented by Adv. -
                                                           Swapnil Roy

                                         -versus-
            State Of Odisha & Ors.           .....              Opposite Parties
                                                      Represented by Adv. -Mr.
                                                      S.Behera, A.G.A.
                                                      Mr.Hrudananda Mohapatra,
                                                      asima samantaray
                                                      samantaray,suchitra behera

                                  CORAM:
                    THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADITYA KUMAR
                                MOHAPATRA

                                             ORDER

Order No.                                   30.03.2026


    06.        1.    This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual
               /Physical Mode).

2. Heard learned counsel for the Petitioner as well as the learned counsel for the Opposite Party No.5 and learned Additional Government Advocate for the State-Opposite Parties. Perused the pleadings of the respective parties as well as the documents annexed thereto.

3. By filing the present writ application, the Petitioner has approached this Court with a following prayer-

"It is therefore prayed that this Hon'ble Court may graciously be pleased to admit the writ petition and issue Rule "NISI" to the Opp.

Parties to show cause as to:

(i) Why the impugned order dated 23.10.2024 passed by Opposite Party No. 3 under Annexure- 23 in the facts and circumstances of the case will not be declared as illegal and as such liable to be set aside/quashed; and

(ii) Why the Opposite Party No. 3 will not be directed to adjudicate the Misc Case No. 36 of 2024 basing on the recommendation made on 29.04.2022 under Annexure-16, Guidelines dated 08.01.2013 under Annexure-15 and the direction contained in the order dated 11.09.2024 passed in W.P. (C) No. 15386 of 2023 under Annexure-19 within a stipulated time;

And if the Opp. Parties do not show cause, then the Rule be made absolute by issuing appropriate writ /writs and any other order as deem fit be passed."

4. Learned counsel for the Petitioner, at the outset, contended that the Petitioner is an institution engaged in the welfare of the deaf and dumb children. The private Opposite Party No.5 was engaged as a class-IV employee by the Petitioner-School. He further submitted that on the basis of allegation made against the Opposite Party No.5, a disciplinary proceeding was initiated against by drawing charges of negligence in duty, disobedience to higher authorities and, unauthorised wilful absence from duty. It has also been contended in the writ application that the Opposite Party No.5 refused to accept the memorandum charges which was communicated to him through speed post.

5. Learned counsel for the Petitioner further contended that the Petitioner-School intimated Opposite Party No.3 about the decision of the management of the school dated 28.04.2022 and recommended

Opposite Party No.3 for disengagement of the Opposite Paty No.5 from her service in terms of Para-14(6) of the guidelines dated 08.01.2023. Accordingly, the Opposite Party No.5 was put under suspension by the management of the school w.e.f. 29.04.2022 as per the order at Annexure-16 to the writ application. Finally, the Petitioner was issued with an order of disengagement dated 18.04.2023 at Annexure-18 to the writ application.

6. Learned counsel for the Petitioner further contended that the Opposite Party No.5, being aggrieved by the decision dated 29.04.2022 at Annexure-16 and the disengagement order dated 18.04.2023 at Annexure-18, approached this Court earlier by filing W.P.(C) No.15386 of 2023. A Coordinate Bench of this Court after hearing from the parties disposed of the writ application vide order dated 11.09.2024 be quashing the impugned order dated 18.04.2023 at Annexure-18 and remanding the matter back to the Opposite Party No.3 to take a decision with regard to the disengagement of the Opposite party No.5 in terms of the resolution dated 08.01.2013.

7. After disposal of the first writ application, the Opposite Party No.3 initiated Misc.case No.36 of 2024 wherein notices were issued to the parties concerned. After providing opportunity of hearing to all concerned vide order dated 23.10.2024, the Misc.Case was disposed of in terms of paragraph-14(6) of the resolution dated 08.01.2013. Learned counsel for the Petitioner at this juncture contended that while disposing of the Misc.case, the Opposite Party No.3 has not followed the provisions contained in Paragraph-14(6) of the guideline dated 08.01.2013 and no opportunity of hearing was provided to the Petitioner-school. On such ground, learned counsel for the Petitioner alleged that the impugned order dated 23.10.2024 at Annexure-23 is unsustainable in law as the same has been passed in violation of the

resolution dated 08.01.2013 and as well as the previous order passed by this Court.

8. Mr. H.N. Mohapatra, learned counsel appearing for the private Opposite Party No.5, at the outset objected to the locus standi of the present Petitioner. Learned counsel for the Opposite Party No.5 further contended that as per the resolution dated 08.01.2013, it is only the Collector who is competent to pass an order of disengagement and not the Petitioner. Further, while clarifying the provisions contained in the resolution at paragraph-14, learned counsel for the Petitioner submitted that the Petitioner is required to bring to the notice of the Collector-Opposite Party No.3 the allegations received against the staff of the institution and further recommend the Collector for disengagement of such staff. He further submitted that it is open to the Collector, after providing opportunity to all concerned, to pass order of disengagement and such disengagement order is to be communicated to the institution for implementation. In view of the aforesaid specific provision contained in Paragraph-14 of the resolution, learned counsel for the Petitioner submitted that the Petitioner-school committed an illegality at the outset by the disengaging the Petitioner. As such, it was argued that such order of disengagement passed by the Petitioner is void ab initio. Further, drawing attention of this Court to the order passed in the present writ application, learned counsel appearing for the Opposite Party No.5 contended that the Coordinate Bench, vide order dated 11.09.2024, while remanding the matter back to the Opposite Party No.3-Collector was pleased to set aside the impugned disengagement order passed by the Petitioner-Institution. He further contended that the after the matter was remanded to the Opposite Party No.3, the Opposite Party No.3 issued notice to all concerned

and after providing them the opportunity of hearing, an order has been passed on 23.10.2024, at Annexure-23, wherein it has been held that the impugned order of disengagement passed by the Petitioner is wholly without jurisdiction and that the same is in violation of the Government instruction dated 08.01.2013. Further, the Opposite Party No.5 was directed to resume duty forthwith and a direction was also given to clear the salary etc. of the Opposite Party No.5 within a time frame. In view of the aforesaid position, learned counsel for the Opposite Party No.5 contended that the present writ application is devoid of merit and accordingly the same should be dismissed.

9. Learned counsel for the State on the other hand referred to the counter affidavit filed by the State-Opposite Party Nos.3 & 4 and submitted before this Court that the Opposite Party No.3 Collector, has not committed any illegality by passing order dated 23.10.2024 at Annexure-23. In course of his argument, learned counsel for the State referred to Paragraph-13 of the counter affidavit and categorically submitted that in obedience of the order passed by this Court in the earlier writ application notices were issued to the parties concerned in terms of the resolution of government dated 08.01.2013 and after hearing the parties, the Opposite Party No.3 has come to a conclusion that the order of disengagement of Opposite Party No.5 has been passed in violation of in the aforesaid resolution dated 08.01.2013. Accordingly, the necessary direction has been issued by the Opposite Party No.3 to the Petitioner-Institution for reinstatement of the Opposite Paty No.5. The counter affidavit further reveals that the Opposite Party No.5 has already retired in the meantime w.e.f. 31.10.2024. In such view of the matter, learned counsel for the State contended that the present writ application is devoid of merit and, accordingly, the same should be dismissed.

10. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the respective parties, on a careful examination of the background facts as well as the dispute involved in the present writ application, this Court examined the factual background of the present case as well as the impugned order dated 23.10.2024 at Annexure-20. On a careful examination of the impugned order dated 23.10.2024, this Court found that after the dispute was remanded to the Opposite Party No.3 by virtue of order dated 11.09.2024 passed in W.P.(C) No.15386 of 2023, the Opposite Party No.3 initiated Misc.Case No.36 of 2024. In the earlier order this Court had specifically quashed the disengagement order of the Opposite Party No.5 and the matter was remanded to the Collector to consider the dispute in terms of the resolution dated 08.01.2013. On a close scrutiny of the order dated 23.10.2024 at Annexure-23 it is revealed that after the case was remanded to the Opposite Party No.3, notices were issued to parties in terms of the provisions contained in Paragraph-14(6) of the resolution dated 08.01.2013. After providing opportunity of hearing to all concerned, the Opposite Party No.3 has finally come to a conclusion that the order of disengagement, which was passed earlier by the Petitioner, is in contravention the Government instruction dated 08.01.2013. Since the order of disengagement was already quashed by this Court in the previous writ application, the Opposite Party No.3 directed the Petitioner to allow the Opposite Party No.5 to resume her duty immediately and to clear of the dues, including salary, as is due and admissible to the Opposite Party No.5. The Petitioner-Institution has approached this Court by filing the present writ application challenging order dated 23.10.2024 at Annexure-23, principally on the ground that no opportunity of hearing was provided to the school despite specific provision having been made in

Paragraph-14(6) of the resolution dated 08.01.2013.

11. This Court carefully considered the submission made by the learned counsel for the Petitioner with regard to the grant of opportunity of hearing. Perused the impugned order dated 23.10.2024 at Annexure-23 passed by the Collector-cum-District Magistrate, Puri. On perusal of the said order dated 23.10.2024, it appears that an opportunity of hearing was provided to all concerned parties before passing order dated 23.10.2024. Therefore, the contention of learned counsel for the Petitioner that he was not provided with an opportunity does not carry any substance. Alternatively, this Court also examined the provision contained in Paragraph-14(6) of the resolution dated 08.01.2013. On perusal of such provision, it appears that the Collector shall initiate the disengagement proceeding upon receiving recommendation/allegation against the concerned employee from the Institutions. It further provides that after giving an opportunity of hearing to the person concerned (obviously the person against whom an adverse order, like an order of disengagement is going to be passed), the Collector shall proceed further in the matter and pass necessary consequential order under the aforesaid provision of the government instruction dated 08.01.2013. In the present case it is evident from the impugned order that adequate opportunity was provided to the Opposite Party No.5, who is the person aggrieved and thereafter the final order dated 23.10.2024 has been passed. In any case, the Opposite Party No.3 has not committed any illegality in passing order dated 23.10.2024. In the meantime, at it is evident from the counter affidavit, the Opposite Party No.5 has already retired from service.

12. In view of the aforesaid analysis of the factual position as well as on a careful scrutiny of the procedure contained in the government

resolution dated 08.01.2013, this Court is of the view that the Opposite Party No.3 has not committed any illegality in passing the impugned order dated 23.10.2024 at Annexure-23. Therefore, the same does not call for any interference by this Court, at this stage.

13. Accordingly, the present writ application stands dismissed.

(A.K. Mohapatra) Judge Rubi

Signed by: RUBI BEHERA Page 8 of 8.