Allowed

Swarnalata Pati v. O.U.a.T.,Bhubaneswar

Orissa HC21 Aug 2019WP(C)/4000/2004

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed the writ petition and quashed an office order suspending the petitioner and a charge sheet framed by the Registrar of BPUT. The Court held that under Section 18(x) of the BPUT Act, only the Board possesses the power to take action against university employees, rendering the Registrar's order without jurisdiction.

What did the court decide?

Annexure-3 (office order of suspension) and Annexure-5 (charge sheet) are quashed.

Swarnalata Pati Vs O.U.a.T.,Bhubaneswar — Service and Employment | Orissa HC (2019)

¶1

W.P.C. NO.4000 of 2004

¶2

24 21.08.2019

¶3

Heard Mr. A. Mohanty, learned Senior Counsel appearing along with Mr. J. Sahu, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. S. Palit, learned counsel for opposite party no.3-BPUT.

¶4

The petitioner has filed this writ petition to quash Annexure-3, the office order dated 01.11.2003 by which she has been suspended from services fixing her headquarters at Bhubaneswar and also she has been directed to report daily in the office of the Principal, College of Engineering and Technology, Bhubaneswar (CET). She further seeks to quash Annexure-5 dated 10.03.2004, the charge sheet which has been framed by the Registrar, BPUT, Rourkela.

¶5

Mr. A. Mohanty, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner states that since the petitioner is continuing as Lecturer in the department of Computer Science and Application in the College of Engineering and Technology, Bhubaneswar, the Registrar, BPUT has no jurisdiction to pass the order of suspension in Annexure-3 and consequential charges in Annexure-5 dated 10.03.2004. In view of provisions contained in Section 18(x) of the BPUT Act, power is vested with the Board to take action against the employees of the University and not with the Registrar.

¶6

Mr. S. Palit, learned counsel appearing for opposite party no.3-BPUT argued with vehemence stating that if the illegality is committed by the

¶7

petitioner, the authority has every power to take action against any officer and as such, the petitioner has committed error. Therefore, the action so taken by the authority cannot be faulted with.

¶8

Considering the contentions raised by learned counsel for the parties and after going through the records, it appears that under Section 18(x) of the BPUT Act, it is the Board, who is the competent authority to take action against the employee but not the Registrar. Therefore, the action so taken by the Registrar, BPUT, Rourkela in Annexure-3 dated 01.11.2003 suspending the petitioner from service fixing her headquarters at Bhubaneswar and directing her t o report daily in the office of the Principal, College of Engineering & Technology, Bhubaneswar and consequential charges framed against the petitioner in Annexure-5 dated 10.03.2004 are without jurisdiction and cannot sustain in the eye of law. Accordingly, they are hereby quashed.

¶9

The writ petition is allowed and no order as to cost.

¶10

…..………………………… Dr. B.R. Sarangi, J.

¶11

Alok

Swarnalata Pati v. O.U.a.T.,Bhubaneswar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Swarnalata Pati v. O.U.a.T.,Bhubaneswar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Bipin Bihari Mohanty Vs Aswini Kumar Mishra

Prakash Chandra Rajpalia Vs Director, Secondary Education

Mitali Mitra Vs State of Orissa

Basanta Ku.Singh Vs President,Tribal Development Cooperative Corporation of Orissa Ltd.

Reena Thapa Vs State

Kailash Ch.Baral Vs State