Ananta Narayan Nayak Vs State of Odisha

“The petitioner therefore, prays that your lordship would be graciously pleased to admit this case call for the records and after hearing the parties allow the same issue writ/writs in nature of certiorari/mandamus and/or any other further writ/direction, directing quashing the order dated 27.09.2018 passed by the Director Special Projects and Appellate Authority under Annexure-1 and disengagement order dated 02.08.2018 under Annexure9 and further be pleased to direct the opposite Parties to reinstate the petitioner as GRS in Balasakumpa Gram Panchayat within a stipulated period.

¶20

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

¶21

The facts, relevant only to decide the present writ application are that the petitioner was working as Gram Rojgar Sevak(GRS) since 23.11.2007 in Balaskumpa Gram Panchayat in Kandhamal district. While working as such he was called upon to show cause

¶22

Page 1 of 4

¶23

as to why action shall not be taken against him for misconduct and financial irregularities as he was found to have uploaded the photo of a PMAY house belonging to one Pabitra Kanhar in the beneficiary details of one Sudarsan Kanhar. It was stated that he did so to mislead the Block Administration and facilitated wrong payment without construction of the house up to DPC level.

¶24

The petitioner submitted his reply to the show-cause, clearly stating that he had uploaded the photograph of Pabitra Kanhar in place of Sudarsan Kanhar unwillingly and unknowingly, which he admitted was a grievous mistake.

¶25

The Collector, by order dated 02.08.2018 did not accept his reply to the show cause and directed the disengagement of the petitioner as GRS. The petitioner preferred appeal before the Director of Special Projects-cum-Appellate Authority. By the order impugned, the Appellate Authority held that the petitioner admitted to have committed the mistake of uploading the wrong photograph which tantamounts to gross negligence and lack of responsibility in discharging the Government duty. Holding thus, the appeal was dismissed.

¶26

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that neither the Collector nor the Appellate Authority took note of the petitioner’s submission that uploading of the photograph of the wrong person was a bonafide mistake and not a deliberate act. Even otherwise, the amount due to the original beneficiary namely, Sudarsan Kanhar had already been credited to his account. Therefore, it cannot be said that the petitioner had deliberately misled the authorities.

¶27

Ms. J.R. Tripahty, learned Special Counsel appearing for MGNREGS argues that as per the comprehensive guidelines dated 06.04.2018, the disciplinary authority is vested with the power to

¶28

Page 2 of 4

¶29

terminate the engagement of the GRS if misconduct is proved. In the instant case, it was proved beyond reasonable doubt that the petitioner had uploaded the photograph of a wrong beneficiary thereby causing loss to the Government .

¶30

Having considered the rival submissions and on going through the materials on record, this Court finds that firstly, the fact that the photograph of one Pratap Kanhar was uploaded by the petitioner as a PMAY beneficiary in place of Sudarsan Kanhar is admitted. Secondly, being called upon to explain, the petitioner while admitting the fact, explained the same as a bonafide mistake. Though, it has been held that the petitioner did so deliberately to mislead the authorities, nothing has been placed before this Court to justify such a stand. On the contrary, materials have been placed before this Court to show that the real beneficiary, namely, Sudarsan Kanhar has received the benefits under the scheme. So, there is no question of any loss being sustained by the Government because of wrong uploading of the photograph by the petitioner. Neither the Collector nor the First Appellate Authority have considered the explanation submitted by the petitioner in the proper perspective but treating the same as an admission of his guilt, disengaged him from service. When it comes to terminating the services of a person, the authorities concerned are expected to be more sensitive to the facts at hand since it involves the livelihood of a person, which is guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.

¶31

For the reasons indicated, this Court is unable to persuade itself to concur with the reasoning adopted by the Collector as well as the Appellate Authority.

¶32

The petitioner’s contract was terminated way back in August, 2018 and more than seven years have passed in the meantime. It is

¶33

Page 3 of 4

¶34

stated at the bar that no other person has been engaged as GRS in the Gram Panchayat in question till date. Nevertheless, the engagement of the petitioner being essentially contractual in nature it would not be proper to direct the authorities to straight away reinstate him at this distance of time . However, having regard to the fact that the petitioner’s contract was wrongfully terminated, the authorities should revisit the issue by considering renewal of the contract with the petitioner.

¶35

The writ application is therefore, disposed of by setting aside the impugned orders dated 02.08.2018 of the Collector and 27.09.2018 of the Appellate Authority and by directing the Collector to pass necessary orders to renew the contract with the petitioner. Necessary orders in this regard shall be passed within three weeks from today.

¶36

It is made clear that the petitioner shall not be entitled to any financial benefits for the period during which he did not render any service to the establishment but the said period shall notionally count towards service and other benefits in view of the fact that his contract was wrongfully terminated.

¶37

( Sashikanta Mishra)

¶38

Judge

¶39

Puspanjali

¶40

Signature Not Verified

¶41

Digitally Signed Signed by: PUSPANJALI GHADAI Designation: Junior Stenographer Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack. Date: 04-Sep-2025 18:11:39

¶42

Page 4 of 4

Ananta Narayan Nayak v. State of Odisha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ananta Narayan Nayak v. State of Odisha

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

Sunita Dash Vs State of Odisha

Maa Kamala Shg, Balasore Vs State of Odisha

Mani Chaeran Swain Vs Nrusingha Charan Mohapatra

Mahavir Bhol Vs Union of India

Malaya Pradhan Vs State of Odisha

Hemakanta Bhoi Vs State of Odisha