Disposed¶19

Narendra Nayak v. State of Odisha

Orissa HC20 Aug 2025WP(C)/21588/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Orissa High Court, Cuttack; W.P.(C) No.21588 of 2025; decided 20.08.2025 by Justice Dixit Krishna Shripad. Suspended Headmaster Narendra Nayak sought quashment of suspension; counsel pleaded Rule 12(5) read with Rule 90, Odisha Service Code, and Ajay Kumar Choudhary v. Union of India, (2015) 7 SCC 291 (90-day limit), noting his name absent from charge sheet and FIR; State contended suspension flowed from interdepartmental police communication. Petition disposed of with liberty to make a representation, to be considered and result communicated within three weeks; contentions kept open; no costs.

What did the court decide?

Liberty to the petitioner to make an appropriate representation immediately; the jurisdictional authority to consider it and inform the petitioner of the result within an outer limit of three weeks; all contentions kept open; no costs.

Narendra Nayak Vs State of Odisha — Orissa HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶19

Issue for consideration

Whether the writ petition seeking revocation/quashment of the suspension of the petitioner, a Headmaster suspended w.e.f. 07.04.2025, should be granted, in view of the plea founded on Rule 12(5) read with Rule 90 of the Odisha Service Code and Ajay Kumar Choudhary v. Union of India, (2015) 7 SCC 291, and the fact that his name figures neither in the charge sheet nor in the F.I.R.

¶15

Court's answer

The Writ Petition is disposed of, reserving liberty to the petitioner to make an appropriate representation immediately; if one is made, the jurisdictional authority shall consider the same.

¶19

Ratio / Principle

The jurisdictional authority shall inform the petitioner of the result of consideration of the representation within an outer limit of three weeks, and all contentions are kept open.

¶21

Key takeaways

The answering opposite parties may solicit any information or documents from the petitioner as required for taking a decision on the subject representation, but in that guise delay shall not be brooked.ratio¶22

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ Petition by a Headmaster under suspension (w.e.f. 07.04.2025) seeking revocation/quashment of the suspension order — disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to make an appropriate representation forthwith; the jurisdictional authority to consider the representation and inform the petitioner of the result within an outer limit of three weeks; all contentions, including those founded on Rule 12(5) read with Rule 90 of the Odisha Service Code and Ajay Kumar Choudhary v. Union of India, (2015) 7 SCC 291 (period of suspension not to exceed 90 days), kept open; the opposite parties free to call for information/documents from the petitioner but without brooking delay; no costs.

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

¶2

W.P.(C) No.21588 of 2025

¶3

Narendra Nayak

¶4

Petitioner

¶5

Mr. P. Agrawal, Advocate

¶6

-versus-

¶7

State of Odisha & Others …. Opp. Parties

¶8

Mr. U.C. Behura, AGA

¶9

CORAM:

¶10

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DIXIT KRISHNA SHRIPAD

Order No.

ORDER

20.08.2025

Petitioner, a Headmaster of a School under suspension, is knocking at the doors of the Writ Court seeking its revocation/quashment.

¶16

Learned counsel for the petitioner heavily presses into service Apex Court decision in Ajay Kumar Choudhary v. Union of India, (2015) 7 SCC 291 to contend that the period of suspension cannot be elongated beyond 90 days and his client having been suspended w.e.f. 07.04.2025, that period is already over and despite that no action has been taken for rescinding the said suspension. He also quotes Rule 12(5) read with Rule 90 of Odisha Service Code in support of his contention. He also submits that investigation having been already accomplished by the Police, charge sheet has been filed wherein the petitioner’s name does not figure. He hastens to add that name of the

¶17

petitioner does not figure even in the F.I.R. and therefore, there is absolutely no reason or rhyme for suspending his client or at least not rescinding the suspension order in the circumstances.

¶18

Learned AGA, appearing for the OPs, submits that it is always the prerogative of the employer to place an employee under suspension in contemplation of disciplinary enquiry or when a criminal case is pending; ordinarily the Writ Court could not interfere in the matters like this, inasmuch as the suspended employee will get the subsistence allowance, and that if he emerges victorious in the punitive proceedings, he would get everything back. He also adds that the petitioner has been kept under suspension because his name being figuring in the interdepartmental communication between the police and other authorities. Having so contended and placing reliance on the decision of Apex Court in Ajay Kumar Choudhary (supra), in all fairness, he submits that if the petitioner makes an appropriate representation coupled with documentary evidence in support of his version, there would be no difficulty for considering the said representation in accordance with law and in a time bound manner. With this proposal, learned counsel for the petitioner is agreeable.

¶19

In the above circumstances, the Writ Petition is disposed of reserving liberty to the petitioner to make an appropriate representation immediately and if one be made, the jurisdictional authority shall consider the same and inform the result of such consideration to the

¶20

¶21

petitioner within an outer limit of three weeks. All contentions are kept open.

¶22

It is open to the answering opposite parties to solicit any information or documents from the side of the Petitioner, as required for taking a decision on the subject representation. However, in that guise delay shall not be brooked.

¶23

Now, no costs.

¶24

Web copy of this order to be acted upon by all concerned.

¶25

Amit

¶26

(Dixit Krishna Shripad) Judge

¶27

Signature Not Verified

¶28

Digitally Signed Signed by: AMIT KUMAR MOHANTY Reason: Authentication Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CU TTACK Date: 21-Aug-2025 09:33:10