Dismissed
Sudam Ch.Moharana v. State
Orissa HCWP(C)/9547/2008
Case brief
AI extract
What is this about?
The petitioner, absent at the call, sought to quash an office order terminating his contractual engagement. The court dismissed the writ petition for non-prosecution.
What the court decided
AI extract
¶1
W.P.(C) No. 9547 of 2008
¶2
- 14.08.2019 None appears for the petitioner at the time of call. The petitioner has filed this application seeking to quash the office order dated 30.06.2007 passed by the opposite party no.2 under Annexure-4, by which the petitioner has been disengaged from contractual engagement w.e.f. 01.07.2007 due to misconduct, inefficiency, insincerity and negligence in his duty.
¶3
Since none is there to prosecute the matter, the writ petition stands dismissed for non-prosecution.
¶4
…..……………………… Dr. B.R. Sarangi, J .
¶5
Ajaya
Issues for consideration
1 issue framed by the court
AI extract
Whether to allow the writ petition seeking quashing of the office order of disengagement.
Parties & counsel
AI extract
- petitioner
Petitioner
- respondent
Opposite Party No. 2
Coram
AI extract
Dr. B.R. Sarangi
Case details
As recorded by the court registry
Similar cases
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court