Petitioner challenged a recovery order of Rs.60,000 passed without an opportunity of hearing. Court set aside the order and directed authorities to pass a fresh order after affording hearing within four months.
Impugned recovery order set aside; directions to相反 parties to pass fresh order after hearing within four months.
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.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
WPC (OA) No.2091 of 2017
Sri Chandramani Rout
…. Petitioner Mr. M. Pati, Advocate
-versus-
…. Director, Elementary Education, Opposite Parties Odisha, Bhubaneswar and others
Mr. N. Jena, Standing Counsel for School and Mass Education Department
CORAM: JUSTICE B. P. ROUTRAY
Order No.
ORDER 04.11.2022
Page 1 of 3
relevant date was working as Asst. Teacher of Hansapada UGUP School.
Page 2 of 3
( B.P. Routray) Judge
B.K. Barik
Page 3 of 3
3 issues framed by the court
Whether a recovery order for Rs.60,000 was validly passed without granting an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner.
Whether the representation filed by the petitioner was duly considered before directing recovery.
Whether to set aside the impugned recovery order and direct a fresh hearing.
Sri Chandramani Rout
Director, Elementary Education
B. P. Routray
B.K. Barik
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
