Partly allowed

Minarva Sahoo v. State of Odisha

Orissa HC25 Aug 2022WPC(OAC)/3485/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court quashed an order of termination/suspension passed against the petitioner without a hearing, directing the opposite party to take a fresh decision after giving reasonable opportunity of hearing and considering specific evidence.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition disposed of; Opposite Party No. 4 directed to take fresh decision within two months after providing hearing opportunity.

Minarva Sahoo Vs State of Odisha — Service and Employment | Orissa HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

¶2

WPC (OAC) No. 3485 of 2016

Minarva Sahoo

Petitioner

-versus-

State of Odisha & Others

¶7

…. Opposite Parties

¶8

COROM: JUSTICE BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY

¶9

ORDER Order No 25.08.2022 1. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Mode.

¶10

2. Heard Mr. B.S. Tripathy, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. N.N. Satpathy, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the State-Opp. Parties.

¶11

3. The petitioner has filed the present writ petition challenging the order dated 18.2.2015 passed by the District Project Coordinator, SSA, Jagatsinghpur under Annexure-5.

¶12

4. It is submitted that the said order has passed on the ground that the petitioner was detained in police custody in connection with the Paradeep P.S. Case No.35 of 2010. It is submitted that prior to issuance of such order, no show-cause notice was ever served on the petitioner nor any opportunity of hearing was ever given to the petitioner and the said order was passed in complete violation of principle of natural justice. Not only that, in the report annexed vide Annexure-D/4 to

¶13

// 2 //

¶14

the counter filed by the B.E.O, Kujang, it has been specifically indicated that on the relevant date, the petitioner was in the school and she has never taken part in the alleged crime.

¶15

5. Be that as it may, since prior to issuance of the order of termination/suspension, the petitioner was never given an opportunity of hearing, this Court while quashing the said order passed under Annexure-5, directs the opp. party No.4 to take a fresh decision on the matter by giving reasonable opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. It is also observed that while taking such a fresh decision, opp. party No.4 shall take into consideration the report submitted by the B.E.O, Kujang and communicated to the said Opp. Party vide letter dated 23.2.2016 under Annexure-D/4 to the counter. This court directs Opp. Party No.4 to take a fresh decision within a period of two months from the date of receipt of this order.

¶16

6. On such re-consideration of the matter, consequential step for re-instatement of the petitioner be also considered within that time.

¶17

7. With the aforesaid observation and direction, the Writ Petition is disposed of.

¶18

(Biraja Prasanna Satapathy) Judge

Sangita

Page 2 of 3

// 3 //

Page 3 of 3

Minarva Sahoo v. State of Odisha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Minarva Sahoo 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Abhiram Behera Vs State of Odisha

Jajneswar Mishra Vs State of Odisha

Prasanta Kumar Parija Vs State of Odisha

Ramesh Kumar Sahoo Vs Ashok Kumar Meena, Commnr Cum Secy., Pr and Dw Dept.

Smt.Sasmita Swain Vs State of Odisha

Devaraj Prusty Vs State of Odisha