State of Odisha Vs Kailash Chandra Behera

was initially engaged as Sikshya Sahayak on 20.11.2012 after undergoing a recruitment process. On completion of three years of uninterrupted service, he became a Junior Teacher with effect from 14.01.2016. Later, a proposal was sent to the District Project

¶19

Page 1 of 6

¶20

Coordinator for regularization of six Junior Teachers including the petitioner as regular (Assistant Teacher), in accordance with extant provision. During the pendency of the said proposal, the petitioner was arrested in a criminal case, registered for commission of various offences punishable under the IPC including Section 302 thereof. When the respondent was in custody, a show-cause notice was issued to him by the District Project Coordinator, RTE-SSA, Puri (opposite party No.5) seeking his explanation on his unauthorized absence. The petitioner submitted his explanation on 17.12.2019 wherein he disclosed about his arrest in connection with the said police case. Without further notice or opportunity of hearing, by an order dated 24.12.2019, the respondent was disengaged from the post of Junior Teacher with immediate effect, purportedly in accordance with Clause 10.5 of the terms and conditions prescribed by the State Government in School and Mass Education Department in the order dated 05.01.2019. The said order dated 24.12.2019 was put to challenge by the respondent by filing the aforesaid writ application. A counter affidavit was filed in the writ proceeding justifying the petitioner’s disengagement on the ground that involvement in a criminal case constituted

¶21

Page 2 of 6

¶22

misconduct and since a show-cause notice was issued, there was no violation of principles of natural justice.

¶23

Learned Single Judge has quashed the order of termination rejecting the contention that involvement in a criminal case itself constitutes a misconduct in employment. Secondly, the respondent was taken into custody on 08.10.2019 and was released on bail on 06.12.2019. While in custody, he was not in a position to inform his superior authorities regarding his absence from duties. Thirdly, learned Single Judge noticed that in the show-cause notice dated 16.11.2019, opposite party No.5 had asked the petitioner to showcause as to why he should not be disengaged from service for such long unauthorized absence from 15.10.2019 till issuance of the said notice. The respondent did submit his reply highlighting the circumstance in which he was forced to remain absent from the duties. Learned Single Judge has further noticed that the impugned order of disengagement does not at all mention of the petitioner’s reply to the show-cause notice. Learned Single Judge has also noticed Clause 10.5 of the aforesaid resolution dated 05.01.2019 which authorized the competent authority to disengage a Junior Teacher (contractual) from service with a prior notice of 30 days, if

¶24

Page 3 of 6

¶25

any condition of the contract was found to have been violated. Learned Single Judge, after having noticed the circumstance that the impugned order did not disclose any application of mind while dealing with the respondent’s reply, has quashed the impugned order of disengagement dated 24.12.2019 with a direction to reinstate the respondent in service forthwith, with all service benefits. Learned Single Judge has however observed that the respondent shall not be entitled to any financial benefits for the period during which he did not render any service, though the said period shall count towards his service notionally.

¶26

Assailing the impugned order, Mr. Bimbisar Dash, learned Additional Government Advocate has submitted that since the engagement of the respondent was on contractual basis, his termination of engagement after giving him notice cannot be faulted with. He submits that there has been no violation of principles of natural justice. He has further submitted that the appellants rightly decided to disengage the respondent because of his involvement in a criminal case of grave nature.

¶27

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent defending the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge

¶28

Page 4 of 6

¶29

has submitted that apparently the respondent’s disengagement is because of his arrest in a criminal case which situation was beyond his control. He has argued that apparently, in the background of present set of facts, the respondent’s implication in a criminal case is solitary reason for his disengagement.

¶30

We have perused the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge as well as the office order dated 24.12.2019 passed by the District Project Coordinator, Samagrashiksha, Puri. It is apparent on reading of the order dated 24.12.2019 that involvement of the respondent in a criminal case and his absence from duty because of his arrest in the said criminal case is the only reason for his disengagement. In such view of the matter, the opinion formed by the learned Single Judge in the impugned judgment cannot be said to be unreasonable requiring this Court’s interference in an intra-Court appeal. In our opinion, the decision of the appellants to deprive the respondent of his livelihood for the sole reason of his implication in a criminal case has been rightly interfered with by the learned Single Judge.

¶31

Accordingly, we are not inclined to interfere with the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge.

¶32

Page 5 of 6

¶33

This appeal is dismissed.

¶34

It goes without saying that it will be open for the competent

¶35

authority to proceed in accordance with law depending on the outcome of the criminal case or a departmental action for a definite misconduct against the respondent.

¶36

(Chakradhari Sharan Singh) Chief Justice

¶37

(Savitri Ratho) Judge

¶38

M. Panda

¶39

Digitally Signed Signed by: MRUTYUNJAYA PANDA Designation: Secretary Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Date: 18-Nov-2024 17:04:06

¶40

Signature Not Verified

¶41

Page 6 of 6

State of Odisha v. Kailash Chandra Behera

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State of Odisha v. Kailash Chandra Behera

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Jagannath Mahaparabh Vs Jagannath Mahaparabh

State of Odisha Vs Dr. Truptirani Naik

Sri Jagannath Mohaprabhu Bije Indola Math, Puri Vs State of Odisha

State of Odisha Vs Maheswar Behura

Abhisek Pattnaik Vs State of Odisha

State of Odisha Vs Anjali Prabha Panda