Disposed

Sushanta K. Mandal v. State and Ors.

Orissa HC5 Nov 2024WP(C)/25993/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition challenged cancellation of the petitioner's Scheduled Caste certificate, passed one day after receipt of an enquiry report without supplying it or giving an opportunity to object. The Court found a violation of natural justice, quashed the cancellation order, remitted the matter for fresh decision after considering objections and hearing parties.

What did the court decide?

Cancellation order dtd.29.08.2011 (Annexure-8) and termination order dtd.30.09.2011 (Annexure-12) quashed; matter remanded to Collector for fresh decision within six weeks after hearing parties.

Sushanta K. Mandal Vs State and Ors. — Caste Atrocities | Orissa HC (2024)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

¶2

W.P.(C) No.25993 of 2011

¶3

Susanta Kumar Mandal

¶4

…. Petitioner

¶5

Mr. G. Rout, Advocate

¶6

-versus-

¶7

State of Odisha & Others

¶8

…. Opposite Parties Mr. A. Tripathy, AGA

¶9

CORAM: JUSTICE BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY

ORDER

Order No.

05.11.2024

22. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual/Physical) Mode.

¶14

2 . Heard learned counsel appearing for the Parties.

¶15

3 . The Present Writ Petition has been filed inter alia challenging order dtd.29.08.2011 so passed by the Collector & District Magistrate, Jagatsinghpur-Opposite Party No.2 under Annexure-8. Vide the said order, caste certificate issued in favour of the Petitioner showing him having belong to Scheduled Caste was cancelled.

¶16

4 . It is the case of the Petitioner that Petitioner was issued with the caste certificate having belonged to Scheduled Caste by the Addl. Tahasildar, Kujang in Misc. Case No.84/2006 under Annexure-1-Series.

¶17

// 2 //

¶18

4 . 1 . It is further contended that basing on the caste certificate so issued under Annexure-1, Petitioner was engaged as Sikshya Sahayak vide order dtd.02.04.2007 so also issued under Annexure-1-Series.

¶19

4 . 2 . It is however contended that alleging that the caste certificate has been wrongly issued in favour of the Petitioner, a Writ Petition was filed before this Court in W.P.(C) No.3179 of 2010 by Opposite Party No.6. This Court vide order dtd.03.05.2010 when directed Opposite Party No.2 to consider the claim made by Opposite Party No.6 regarding the caste of the Petitioner, Collector took up the matter by registering Misc. Case No.10/2010.

¶20

4 . 3 . It is contended that in the said proceeding, Collector-Opposite Party No.2 requested the Tahasildar, Ersama-Opposite Party No.5 to cause an enquiry and submit a report.

¶21

4 . 4 . It is contended that the report in question was submitted by the Tahasildar-Opposite Party No.5 on 27.08.2011 under Annexure-7. But without providing a copy of the enquiry report so submitted by the Tahasildar and by allowing the Petitioner to file his objection to the said report, Opposite Party No.2 passed the impugned order on 29.08.2011, whereby the caste certificate issued in favour of the Petitioner was cancelled. Not only that because of the impugned order, Petitioner was also issued

¶22

Page 2 of 6

¶23

// 3 //

¶24

with the order of termination terminating him from the post of Sikshya Sahayak.

¶25

4 . 5 . It is however contended that in view of the interim order passed by this Court on 21.10.2011, Petitioner was allowed to continue as a Sikshya Sahayak and he is continuing as such as on date.

¶26

4 . 6 . It is contended that since basing on the enquiry report so submitted on 27.08.2011 under Annexure-7, Petitioner’s caste certificate was cancelled vide order dtd.29.08.2011 i.e. just one day after submission of the enquiry report, no such order could have been passed by Opposite Party No.2, without providing copy of the said report to the Petitioner and giving an opportunity to the Petitioner to file his objection to the said report.

¶27

4 . 7 . It is contended that since principle of natural justice was not followed by Opposite Party No.2 and the matter was disposed of just one day after receipt of the enquiry report, the impugned order is not sustainable in the eye of law.

¶28

5 . Mr. A. Tripathy, learned Addl. Government Advocate for the State though supported the impugned but fairly contended that prior to passing of the impugned order on 29.08.2011, Petitioner should have been provided with a copy of the enquiry report submitted on 27.08.2011 and thereby enabling him to file his objection.

¶29

Page 3 of 6

¶30

// 4 //

¶31

6 . Mr. M.S. Sahoo, learned counsel appearing for Opposite Party No.6 on the other hand contended that basing on the order passed by this Court in W.P.(C) No.3179 of 2010, Collector-Opposite Party No.2 not only initiated the proceeding in Misc. Case No.10/2010, but also after due verification of the same and the enquiry report submitted by Opposite Party No.5 on 27.08.2011 under Annexure-7 has rightly cancelled the caste certificate so issued in favour of the Petitioner under Annexure-1-Series.

¶32

7 . Having heard learned counsel appearing for the Parties and considering the submissions made, this Court finds that Petitioner was issued with the caste certificate on 03.02.2006 as per the order passed in Misc. Case No.84/2006 under Annexure-1-Series. In terms of the said caste certificate, Petitioner was also engaged as Sikshya Sahayak vide order dtd.02.04.2007 under Annexure-1-Series. But as found from the record basing on the order passed by this Court in W.P.(C) No.3179 of 2010, Opposite Party No.2 initiated the proceeding in Misc. Case No.10/2010 with regard to cancellation of the caste certificate issued in favour of the Petitioner under Annexure-1-Series. In the proceeding so initiated, basing on the direction issued by Opposite Party No.2, Opposite Party No.5 submitted an enquiry report on 27.08.2011 under Annexure-7. But Opposite Party No.2 without

¶33

Page 4 of 6

¶34

// 5 //

¶35

providing a copy of the said report on the Petitioner and by allowing him to file his objection, decided the matter with passing of the impugned order just one day after i.e. on 29.08.2011 under Annexure-8.

¶36

7 . 1 . In view of such material irregularity, which is apparent on the face of the record, this Court is inclined to quash order dtd.29.08.2011 so passed by Opposite Party No.2 under Annexure-8. While quashing the same, this Court remits the matter to Opposite Party No.2 to take a fresh decision with regard to cancellation of the caste certificate issued in favour of the Petitioner under Annexure-1-Series.

¶37

It is however observed that since the Petitioner has already in receipt of the enquiry report submitted by the Tahasildar on 27.08.2011 so enclosed under Annexure-7, Petitioner along with a copy of this order will file his objection before Opposite Party No.2 within a period of 15 (fifteen) days from the date of receipt of this order. Opposite Party No.2 is directed to take a fresh decision taking into account the report submitted by the Tahasildar under Annexure-7 as well as the objection filed by the Petitioner and by giving an opportunity of hearing to the Petitioner as well as Opposite Party No.6. Opposite Party No.2 is directed to take a fresh decision within a period of six (6) weeks from the date of receipt of the objection as directed hereinabove.

¶38

Page 5 of 6

¶39

// 6 //

¶40

It is however further observed that if the Petitioner does not file his objection within the time indicated hereinabove, the original order passed by Opposite Party No.2 on 29.08.2011 under Annexure-8 shall automatically be revived. In view of the quashing of the order dtd.29.08.2011 under Annexure-8, order dtd.30.09.2011 issued under Annexure-12 also stands quashed.

¶41

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

¶42

(Biraja Prasanna Satapathy) Judge

¶43

Subrat

¶44

Signature Not Verified

¶45

Digitally Signed Signed by: SUBRAT KUMAR BARIK Reason: Authentication Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CU TTACK Date: 11-Nov-2024 17:27:04

¶46

Page 6 of 6

Sushanta K. Mandal v. State and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sushanta K. Mandal v. State and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Subash Ch.Bhanja Vs Sarpanch,Jamgaon G.P

Bhubananda Biswal Vs State of Odisha

Pranaya Kumar Mohanty Vs State of Odisha

Birendra Singh Budek Vs State of Orissa

Nishikanta Mahapatra Vs State Project Director,Opepa

Girish Chandra Das Vs State of Odisha