Disposed

Mangalpur Gram Panchayat Level Federation, Jajpur v. State of Odisha

Orissa HC28 Oct 2022WP(C)/22931/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners challenged a transfer order of a Master Book Keeper without issuing notice to her. The Court held the opposition based on alleged misappropriation gave the GPLF power to remove the employee, rendering interference unnecessary. The writ petition was disposed of.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition disposed of without issuing notice to the opposite party affected by the order.

Mangalpur Gram Panchayat Level Federation, Jajpur Vs… — Service and Employment | Orissa HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

¶2

WP(C) No.22931 of 2022 (Through Hybrid mode)

¶3

Mangalpur Gram Panchayat Level …. Petitioners Federation, Jajpur and another

¶4

Mr. M. Wright, Advocate

¶5

-versus-

¶6

…. State of Odisha and others Opposite Parties

¶7

Mr. A. K. Nanda, AGA

¶8

CORAM: JUSTICE ARINDAM SINHA ORDER 28.10.2022

¶9

Order No.

¶10

1. Mr. Wright, learned advocate appears on behalf of petitioners. He submits, his clients constitute Gram Panchayat Level Federation (GPLF) in respect of Mangalpur Gram Panchayat. They are aggrieved by order dated 23^rd June, 2022 made by Deputy Collector, impugned in the writ petition. This is so because by impugned order, opposite party no.6 stands transferred as Master Book Keeper (MBK) to Mangalpur Gram Panchyat. He refers to GPLF operation manual, clause 3.5. He submits, opposite party no.6 was involved in financial irregularity while serving as MBK in Trijanga Gram

¶11

Page 1 of 3

¶12

// 2 //

¶13

Panchayat. In the circumstances, his clients approached the Deputy Collector resisting the prayer for transfer but it will appear from impugned order, their contention was not considered at all.

¶14

Mr. Nanda, learned advocate, Additional Government Advocate appears on behalf of State and submits, his instructions are that contentions in opposition to the transfer, made to Deputy Collector by petitioner/GPLF, were considered in making impugned order. There has been no finding of financial misappropriation by opposite party no.6. There should not be interference.

¶15

On query from Court Mr. Wright submits, there has not been direction for issuance of notice on opposite party no.6.

¶16

Notwithstanding absence of opposite party no.6, there is no necessity to notice her at this stage. Reliance by petitioners upon clause 3.5 in the operation manual has caused Court to notice following clause 3.5.1 bearing sub-clause (3), reproduced below.

¶17

“The GPLF-EC will have the right to remove the Master book-keeper and CRP from its services for reasons it deems sufficient, including financial misappropriation, poor performance, or any other reasons deemed to adversely affect the functioning of the GPLF & SHG.”

¶18

Page 2 of 3

¶19

// 3 //

¶20

The GPLF, on finding misappropriation, as alleged, have the power to remove opposite party no.6. As it stands, said opposite party was working as MBK in Trijanga Gram Panchayat and after bifurcation, stands transferred to Mangalpur Gram Panchayat. No interference is

¶21

warranted against impugned order.

¶22

Prasant

¶23

The writ petition is disposed of.
(Arindam Sinha)
Judge

¶24

Page 3 of 3

Mangalpur Gram Panchayat Level Federation, Jajpur v. State of Odisha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mangalpur Gram Panchayat Level Federation, Jajpur 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Puspalata Nayak Vs State of Odisha

Baijayanti Rout Vs State of Odisha

Snigdha Roy Vs State of Odisha

Basanta Ku.Parichha Vs State of Orissa

Malaya Kumar Mohanty Vs Sub-Collector, Bbsr

Manjula Manjari Das Vs State of Odisha