Banabihari Rath Vs State of Odisha

The appellant was a Teacher-cum-In-charge Headmaster of Butiarbahal Government Primary School . There was allegation against him of having molested the teenaged girl students of the said primary school. After having conducted a preliminary enquiry and reached a conclusion that the allegation against the appellant was correct, the Disciplinary Authority decided to dismiss the appellant invoking Article 311(2)(b) of the Constitution of India and Rule 15 of the O.C.S. (CC & A) Rules, 1962. Nearly four years after the said order of dismissal was passed, the appellant filed an Original Application before the Odisha Administrative Tribunal. The application filed by the

¶17

Page 1 of 4

¶18

appellant before the Tribunal was apparently time barred. It is noted at this juncture that the appellant had filed an appeal also against the order of dismissal dated 19.09.2014. However, after abolition of the Odisha Administrative Tribunal, the said Original Application stood transferred to this Court and came to be registered as WPC(OAC) No.308 of 2018. On 09.12.2022 the writ petition stood dismissed for default. The appellant thereafter filed an application for restoration of the writ petition in 2023 which was dismissed by an order dated 23.08.2023 passed in CMAPL No.324 of 2023.

¶19

With the same relief as the appellant had sought in his Original Application before the Tribunal and subsequently in this Court in the writ proceeding, the appellant filed second writ petition giving rise to W.P.(C) No.40142 of 2023. The said writ petition has been dismissed by the learned Single Judge of this Court by an order dated 21.12.2023, which is under challenge in the present intra-Court appeal.

¶20

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant has submitted that the impugned order of dismissal is per se illegal having been passed in violation of principle of natural justice, inasmuch as the same was passed without any departmental proceeding. He has submitted that the appeal preferred by the appellant remained pending before the Appellate Authority since 2014. He submits that these aspects have not been gone into in correct perspective by the learned Single Judge in the impugned

¶21

Page 2 of 4

¶22

order dated 21.12.2023, which requires interference in the present intra-Court appeal.

¶23

We have carefully perused the pleadings and other materials on record including the order passed by the Disciplinary Authority dated 19.09.2014, whereby the appellant was dismissed from service.

¶24

It transpires from the said order of dismissal that on the charge of molesting three minor girls of his school the appellant was arrested by the Police for commission of offence punishable under Section 376 of I.P.C. and Section 8 of the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 as well as Section 3 of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. An in-house inquiry was conducted in relation to the said allegations. The victim girls and other witnesses were examined. The victim girls fully supported during the course of their examination the allegation of molestation against the appellant. It emerged upon the in-house inquiry that there were multiple instances of commission of sexual assault in the nature of molestation by the appellant.

¶25

Considering the nature of accusation and the fact that the victims were the minor girls, the Disciplinary Authority reached a conclusion that it was not reasonably practicable and expedient to hold further enquiry in relation to the appellant’s misconduct. It also transpires from the impugned order that the appellant was given an opportunity to explain the circumstances emerging against him. After having considered the appellant’s reply, the

¶26

Page 3 of 4

¶27

Disciplinary Authority dismissed the appellant from service invoking power under second proviso (b) of clause (2) of Article 311 of the Constitution of India and Rule 15 of the O.C.S. (CC & A) Rules, 1962.

¶28

Learned Single Judge, after having noticed the manner in which the case was conducted by the appellant after the impugned order of dismissal was passed and other factors, as noted above, dismissed the writ petition by the impugned order dated 21.12.2023.

¶29

After having gone through the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge and having assessed the facts and circumstances on which the order of dismissal was passed against the appellant in 2014, we are not inclined to interfere with the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge. The impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge does not suffer from any legal infirmity requiring interference.

¶30

This writ appeal is, accordingly, dismissed.

¶31

(Chakradhari Sharan Singh) Chief Justice

¶32

(M.S. Raman) Judge

¶33

Signature Not Verified MRS/laxmikant

¶34

Digitally Signed Signed by: LAXMIKANT MOHAPATRA Designation: Senior Stenographer Reason: Authentication Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, C UTT ACK Date: 21-May-2024 13:30:04

¶35

Page 4 of 4

Banabihari Rath v. State of Odisha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Banabihari Rath v. State of Odisha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sumati Pattnayak Vs Charan Nayak, Project Director,Kanpur Irrigation Project, Basudevpur, Keonjhar

Basanta Manjari Mohanty Vs Charan Nayak, Project Director Kanpur Irrigation Project, Basudevpur, Keonjhar

Banalata Dei Vs Siddharth Shankar Swain, I.A.S.

College of B.Sc Nursing Training, Baripada Vs State of Odisha

Rubi Mahapatra Vs the State of Odisha

State of Odisha Vs Prasanta Kumar Nayak