Partly allowed

Pratima Bhoi v. State of Odisha

Orissa HC20 Aug 2015WP(C)/14928/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court allowed a writ petition assessing the dismissal of an Anganwadi worker's appeal on technical delay grounds. Finding the grievance unadjudicated on merits due to inadvertence, the Court ordered the Collector to decide the appeal on merits after a hearing within eight weeks.

What did the court decide?

The Collector to decide the petitioner's appeal on its own merit after hearing the parties within eight weeks.

02. 20.08.2015 This writ petition has been filed assailing the order dated 12 .06.2015 passed in Misc. Appeal No. 03 of 2015 by the Collector, Kalahandi which according to the petitioner, has been dismissed merely on technical ground without assessing the matter on its merit.

The case of the petitioner is that he has been engaged as Anganwadi worker in Boringpadara Anganwadi centre and working since 07.07.1997 and while working there show cause notice has been issued which has been replied by the petitioner by giving specific reply to th e Sub-Collector, Bhawanipatna but the Sub-Collector has passed the order of disengagement on t he ground that the reply submitted by the petitioner is not at all satisfactory. The case of the petitioner is that against the order passed by the Sub-Collector on 30.0 1.2015, he has filed an appeal since the Collector being an appellate authority to look into t he matter and pass appropriate order of the engagement. But the Collector has dismissed the ap peal on the ground that the appeal has not been filed within the stipulated period as has been directed by this Court in W.P.(C) No. 3206 of 2015 disposed of on 02.04.2015 wherein liberty was given to file an appeal within two weeks from the date of the order.

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that the dismissal of appeal by the Collector on technical ground without going into the merit of the issue will permanently deprived the petitioner from working as Anganwadi worker.

He further submits that the appeal could not have been filed because of some c ommunication gap but immediately after knowing about the order, appeal has been preferred, hen ce the delay has not intentionally rather it is only due to inadvertence and bona fide mistake .

Learned counsel appearing for the opposite party-State has vehemently opposed the prayer of the petitioner and has submitted that on the ground of serious irregularities ha ving been committed by the petitioner in course of discharge of her duty she has been disengag ed after issuance of show cause notice and after providing an opportunity of personal hearing.

He further submits that the petitioner has approached this Court against the o rder passed by the Sub-Collector in W.P.(C) No. 3206 of 2015 wherein this Court has given libe rty to the petitioner to file appeal within two weeks from the date of order which has not bee n filed and accordingly the appeal has been dismissed without going into merit of the case, he nce there is no illegality in the order passed by the Collector.

The petitioner has been engaged and discharged her duty as Anganwadi worker si nce in the year 1997. A show cause notice has been issued to her on 05.12.2014 asking explanat ion from her with respect to commission of certain irregularities which has been replied by he r. The petitioner has denied the entire allegation however it

has remarked that the explanation submitted by the petitioner is not at all satisfacto ry by the Sub-Collector as would be evident from the order dated 30.01.2015. The Sub-Collector in one line has said that the reply submitted by the petitioner has not satisfactory, why it has not satisfactory that has not been disclosed by him, as such the order passed by the Sub-C ollector is an order without assigning any reason as it is settled that the order without any reason amounts to violation of principle of natural justice.

The appeal has been preferred before the Collector against the order of diseng agement dated 30.01.2015 passed by the Sub-Collector, Bhawanipatna. But the same has been reje cted on the ground that the appeal has been filed after lapse of the stipulated period fixed b y this Court in W.P.(C) No. 3206 of 2015 wherein this Court has given liberty to the petitione r to file an appeal within two weeks from today but the appeal has been filed after delay of s ix weeks.

The petitioner ought to have conscious for her grievance by following the judi cial order in its strict sense. But she has failed in doing so and as such delay has been caus ed. It is evident that the petitioner has tried to justify the reason of delay which is due to communication gap and as such it cannot be said to be intentional, because after issuance of show cause notice, the petitioner has submitted her reply within time, when asked by the Sub-C ollector to appear in person she had appeared and also filed writ petition. Hence this part of the action of the

petitioner shows that she was very much conscious in ventilating her grievance by appr oaching the Court of law/authorities. But, for the reason of non-communication of the order it could not have been filed withi n the stipulated period as per the direction of this Court passed in W.P.(C) No. 3206 of 2015.

Since the petitioner is continuing as Anganwadi worker in the year 1997 and as such she has performed her duty without any complaint for last 17 years hence as she ought to have been provided all the remedy available to her under the guideline or any other statute, but due to dismissal of appeal by the Collector on technical ground all the road will be close d for the petitioner.

The litigant cannot be made to be a remediless but by dismissing the appeal of the petitioner on technical ground her grievance cannot be said to be adjudicated as per the guideline and by the Court of law.

It is settled that if any grievance/issue has been raised, the same ought to h ave been decided so that the matter may be decided on its merit and set at rest finally. Considering all these aspects of the matter it would be in the ends of justice that one opportunity of hearing be provided to the petitioner so that the matter may be adjud icated on its merit. Hence, the order passed by the Collector is hereby modified to the extent directing the Collector to decide the appeal of the petitioner on its own merit after hearing the

Pratima Bhoi v. State of Odisha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pratima Bhoi v. State of Odisha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Susama Patel Vs Collector,Sundargarh

Mamata Rani Mishra Vs State of Odisha

Satyanarayan Kumbhar Vs Dist.Collector,Subarnapur

Ahalya Mishra@Padhee Vs State

Krupa Sindhu Sahoo Vs Dm,-Cum-Collector,Nayagarh

Bhikari Ch.Kar Vs State and Ors.