Debajani Pradhan v. State and Ors.
Case brief
What is this about?
This court disposed of a writ petition challenging the termination of a Junior Engineer. The court rejected the claim that an inquiry was bypassed, finding that the termination followed a show-cause notice and assessment of materials, aligning with natural justice principles.
What the court decided
A compact analysis
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
W.P.C. NO.1267 of 2011
6 18.04.2019
Heard Mr. S.C. Samantaray, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. A.K. Mishra, learned Additional Government Advocate and Mr. D. Panda, learned counsel for opposite party no.2.
The petitioner has filed this writ petition to quash the order of termination dated 27.12.2010 in Annexure-7.
Mr. S.C. Samantaray, learned counsel for the petitioner states that while passing the order of termination dated 27.12.2010, no opportunity of hearing has been given to the petitioner. Therefore, the petitioner has approached this Court by filing this writ petition to quash the order of termination.
Mr. A.K. Mishra, learned Additional Government Advocate contended that the order of termination has been passed in compliance of the provisions of law. Therefore, the relief sought for by the petitioner cannot be granted at this stage.
Mr. D. Panda, learned counsel for opposite party no.2 sought for time.
Though the counter affidavit has already been filed by the said opposite party and since it is a year old case, no time is granted to learned
counsel for opposite party no.2 and accordingly, this Court proceeded with the matter.
Issues for consideration
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the order of termination/disengagement of the petitioner was passed without affording an opportunity of hearing.
Whether the action taken against the petitioner was in compliance with principles of natural justice despite allegations of misconduct in a vigilance case.
Parties & counsel
- petitioner
Petitioner
- respondent
Opposite party no.2
- respondent
Opposite party no.3
Coram
Case details
As recorded by the court registry
Similar cases
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court