Rajaneesh Pati Vs State of Odisha

“It is therefore most humbly prayed that this Hon'ble Court may be graciously pleased to admit this petition, issue notice, call for the records and if the opposite parties fails to show cause, then this Hon'ble Court may quash the impugned order dtd: 25.10.2021 in Annexture-2 series, by directing the Opp. No.2 and 3 to allow the petitioner to join in the post of D.E.O (Data Entry Operator) in Gondia Tahasil, Dhenkanal by complying with the order dtd:10.8.2021 passed by the Opp. No.2.

¶18

And/or may pass such order/ orders, direction/directions as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper.

¶19

And for the said act of kindness, the petitioner shall, as in duty bound, ever pray.”

¶20

// 2 //

¶21

4 . It is the case of the Petitioner that Petitioner while continuing in service, he remained on leave for the period from 05.10.2019 to 01.03.2020. Thereafter vide order dtd.10.08.2021 so issued by Opposite Party No.2, Petitioner though was allowed to join in the establishment of Tahasildar, Gondia, but his joining report was not accepted by the Tahasildar, on the ground that Tahasildar has sought for certain clarification so reflected in letter dtd.16.08.2021 enclosed to Annexure-1.

¶22

4 . 1 . It is contended that thereafter when joining of the Petitioner was never accepted, nor any further communication was issued to him, Petitioner approached this Court by filing W.P.(C) No.25997 of 2021. This Court vide order dtd.22.09.2024, disposed of the Writ Petition by directing Opposite Party No.2 to take a fresh decision on the Petitioner’s claim so far as acceptance of his joining is concerned. On the face of such order, no decision was taken, Petitioner filed a Contempt in CONTC No.7070 of 2021.

¶23

4 . 2 . However, on receipt of the notice in the CONTC No.7070 of 2021, the impugned order was passed on 25.10.2021 under Annexure-2 so communicated vide letter dtd.20.04.2022, inter alia observing that Petitioner has already been disengaged w.e.f. from the date of his unauthorized absent i.e. 09.10.2019.

¶24

Page 2 of 6

¶25

// 3 //

¶26

4.3 . Learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner contended that since vide order dtd.10.08.2021, Petitioner was allowed to join on the face of his remaining absent for the period 05.10.2019 to 01.03.2020, the impugned order on the ground indicated could not have been passed on 25.10.2021 under Annexure-2.

¶27

4 . 4 . It is contended that once the Petitioner was allowed to join vide order dtd.10.08.2021 of Opposite Party No.2, the self-same authority could not have taken a different stand with passing of the impugned order and by holding that Petitioner was already disengaged w.e.f. 09.10.2019.

¶28

4 . 5 . It is accordingly contended that the impugned order dtd.25.10.2021 so communicated vide letter dt.20.04.2022 under Annexure-2 is not sustainable in the eye of law.

¶29

5 . Basing on the instruction, learned Addl. Standing Counsel for the State contended that vide order dtd.10.08.2021 of Opposite Party No.2, Petitioner though was allowed to join, but taking into account the letter issued by the Tahasildar, Gondia on 13.03.2019, Opposite Party No.2 passed an order on 08.10.2021 with due intimation to the Tahasildar that Petitioner has been disengaged w.e.f. 09.10.2019.

¶30

Page 3 of 6

¶31

// 4 //

¶32

5 . 1 . It is contended that on the face of such order passed by Opposite Party No.2 on 08.10.2021 and while taking a decision on the Petitioner’s claim in terms of the order passed by this Court in W.P.(C) No. 25997 of 2021, the impugned order was passed on 25.10.2021, by holding that the Petitioner has already been disengaged w.e.f. 09.10.2019.

¶33

5 . 2 . Mr. Das, learned ASC vehemently contended that taking into account the allegations made by the Tahasildar against the Petitioner in his letter dtd.13.03.2019, Petitioner is not eligible and entitled to get the benefit of reengagement.

¶34

5 . 3. It is also contended that Petitioner since has been disengaged w.e.f. 09.10.2019, Petitioner is not entitled to get any benefit as prayed for.

¶35

6 . Having heard learned counsel appearing for the Parties and considering the submissions made, this Court finds that Petitioner while continuing in service, he remained absent w.e.f. 05.10.2019 to 01.03.2020. On the face of such remaining on leave, Petitioner was allowed to join vide the order passed by the CollectorOpposite Party No.2 on 10.8.2021 under Annexure-1.

¶36

6 . 1 . Pursuant to such order when Petitioner joined in the establishment of Opposite Party No.3, his joining was not accepted, on the ground that some clarification

¶37

Page 4 of 6

¶38

// 5 //

¶39

has been sought for by Opposite Party No.3 vide letter dtd.16.08.2021 under Annexure-1. Thereafter, when joining of the Petitioner was not accepted, Petitioner approached this Court by filing W.P.(C) No.25997 of 2021. This Court when directed Opposite Party No.2 to take a decision on the Petitioner’s joining pursuant to Annexure-1, the impugned order was passed on 25.10.2021, by holding that Petitioner has been disengaged w.e.f. 09.10.2019.

¶40

6 . 2 . This Court taking into account the fact that on the face of Petitioner remaining absent for the period 05.10.2019 to 01.03.2020, Petitioner since was allowed to join vide order dtd.10.08.2021 of Opposite Party No.2 under Annexure-1, the self-same authority could not have passed a different orders by holding that the Petitioner has already been disengaged w.e.f 09.10.2019. The stand of the State that basing on the letter issued by the Tahasildar on 13.03.2019, Opposite Party No.2 passed a further order by holding the Petitioner to have been disengaged w.e.f. 09.10.2019 is also not acceptable to this Court, as on the face of such allegations made by the Tahasildar in his letter dtd.13.03.2019, Petitioner was not only allowed to continue till he remained on leave w.e.f. 05.10.2019, but also on the face of such allegation, Opposite Party No.2 passed an order by directing the TahasildarOpposite Party No.3 to accept the joining report of the

¶41

Page 5 of 6

¶42

// 6 //

¶43

Petitioner vide order dtd.10.08.2021 under Annexure-1.

¶44

6 . 3 . In that view of the matter, this Court is of the view that the impugned order is not sustainable in the eye of law.

¶45

6 . 4 . Therefore, this Court while quashing order dtd.25.10.2021 directs the Opposite Party Nos.2 and 3 to allow the Petitioner to join in his post forthwith. Petitioner is permitted to submit his joining along with copy of this order before Opposite Party No.2 within a period of ten (10) days hence. Opposite Party No.2 & 3 are directed to act accordingly.

¶46