Disposed¶19

Nishikanta Mahapatra v. State Project Director,Opepa

Service law – Disengagement notice dated 02.05.2016 (Annexure-8)

Orissa HC5 Nov 2024WP(C)/2884/2018

Download

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

WP(C) No. 2884 of 2018, Nishikanta Mahapatra v. State Project Director, OPEPA & Ors., High Court of Orissa at Cuttack, Justice Biraja Prasanna Satapathy, order dated 05.11.2024 - disengagement notice dated 02.05.2016 (Annexure-8), natural justice, appealable order, alternative remedy, liberty to file appeal, delay condonation, writ petition disposed of.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition disposed of with liberty to file an appeal before the appellate authority within two weeks; the appellate authority to decide the appeal on merit without insisting on delay. ¶19

Nishikanta Mahapatra Vs State Project Director,Opepa — Orissa HC (2024) — LawSathi Research

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK WP(C) No. 2884 of 2018

¶2

Nishikanta Mahapatra

¶3

..... Petitioner

¶4

Mr. B.P. Das, Advocate

¶5

-versus-

¶6

State Project Director, OPEPA ..... Opposite Parties & Ors. Mr. C.M. Singh, ASC

¶7

CORAM:

¶8

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY ORDER

¶9

05.11.2024

¶10

Order No. 03

¶11

This matter is taken up through hybrid mode.

¶12

Heard Mr. B.P. Das, learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner and Mr. C.M. Singh, learned Addl. Standing Counsel appearing for the State-Opp. Parties. None appeared for the Opp. Party Nos. 1 to 3 when the matter was taken up.

¶13

Learned counsel for the Petitioner contended that Petitioner was disengaged from his services vide the impugned disengagement notice dtd.02.05.2016 under Anexure-8.

¶14

It is contended that such a notice has been issued without following the principle of natural justice and accordingly it is not sustainable in the eye of law.

¶15

Mr. Singh, learned Addl. Standing Counsel on the other hand contended that Petitioner was issued with such notice of engagement under Annexure-8 after issuance of 1^st and 2^nd show-cause and on due consideration of the reply submitted by the Petitioner to the 2^nd show-cause under Annexure-7. It is accordingly contended that no

¶16

interference is called for with the impugned notice issued under Annexure-8.

¶17

However, in course of hearing learned counsel for the Petitioner contended that since the impugned notice is an appealable one, Petitioner be given liberty to move the appellate authority and delay in filing the appeal be condoned.

¶18

Having heard learned counsel appearing for the Parties and considering the submissions made, this Court finds that the impugned notice is an appealable one. Accordingly, this Court is not inclined to entertain the writ petition. However, considering the fact that the writ petition is pending before this Court since 2018, it is observed that if any such appeal is filed within a period of two (2) weeks from the date of receipt of this order, the appellate authority shall do well to take up the appeal and decide the same on merit without insisting on any delay.

¶19