Allowed¶13

Sanjaya Ku.Panigrahi v. State

Orissa HC3 Sept 2025WP(C)/21593/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Suspension of Principal-in-charge of aided college; Rule 21 Odisha Aided Educational Institutions Rules 1974; 30-day outer limit for suspension without approval of Inspector/Director; no disciplinary proceeding initiated; indefinite suspension untenable; Adikanda Jena 1990 (I) OLR 234 relied on; K. Sukhendar Reddy 1999 (6) SCC 257 and State of A.P. v. N. Radhakishan 1998 (4) SCC 154 on prejudice from unexplained delay; Sub-Collector's authority as Governing Body President left undecided; WP(C) 21593/2014 allowed, suspension quashed with consequential benefits.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition allowed; impugned order of suspension dated 29th October, 2014 (Annexure-1) quashed; authorities directed to grant all consequential reliefs to the Petitioner without delay. ¶13

Sanjaya Ku.Panigrahi Vs State — Writ and Judicial Review | Orissa HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Writ petition allowed; impugned order of suspension dated 29th October, 2014 (Annexure-1) quashed; authorities directed to grant all consequential reliefs to the Petitioner without delay.

¶13

Issue for consideration

Whether the Petitioner's suspension (Annexure-1) could remain valid beyond thirty days without approval of the Inspector/Director under Rule 21 of the 1974 Rules, particularly when no disciplinary proceeding had been initiated against him. +1 more

¶7

Court's answer

Under Rule 21 of the 1974 Rules, the governing body may suspend an employee of an aided educational institution pending initiation of disciplinary proceeding for not more than 30 days from the date of suspension; beyond that, approval of the competent authority (Inspector or Director) is mandatory.

¶10

Ratio / Principle

Since neither approval of the Director was obtained within the statutory period nor was any disciplinary proceeding initiated, the order of suspension under Annexure-1 is completely unsustainable, irrespective of the question of the Sub-Collector's authority to pass it.

¶12

Key takeaways

The Court expressly declined to enter into the question of the Sub-Collector's authority to act as President of the College to pass the suspension order; the quashing rests solely on non-compliance with Rule 21's approval requirement.obiter¶12

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India — Petitioner, Lecturer (since 1992) and Principal-in-charge of a non-Government aided college receiving grant-in-aid, suspended by the Sub-Collector, Malkangiri acting as President of the Governing Body, contemplating disciplinary proceeding — Odisha Education (Recruitment and Conditions of Service of Teachers and Members of the Staff of Aided Educational Institutions) Rules, 1974, Rule 21: suspension by the Managing Committee/Governing Body at the initiation of disciplinary proceeding is valid only for thirty days, pending approval of the Inspector or the Director — relying on Adikanda Jena v. State of Odisha, 1990 (I) OLR 234, and K. Sukhendar Reddy and N. Radhakishan (SC) — no disciplinary proceeding initiated nor charge prepared; State silent on approval of the Director — suspension continued indefinitely beyond 30 days without approval is unsustainable — suspension order dated 29th October, 2014 quashed; consequential reliefs directed — question of the Sub-Collector's authority to act as President left open.

¶1

Signature Not Verified

¶2

Digitally Signed Signed by: MANAS KUMAR PANDA Designation: Personal Assistant Reason: Authentication Location: OHC, Cuttack Date: 08-Sep-2025 17:54:57

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK WP(C) No.21593 of 2014

¶4

(In the matter of an application under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India)

¶5

Sanjaya Kumar Panigrahi …. Petitioner

¶6

-versus-

¶7

State of Odisha, represented through its Commissioner-cumSecretary, Higher Education … Opposite Parties Department and Others

¶8

Advocate(s) appeared in this case:-

¶9

For Petitioner : Mr. A.K. Mohanty, Advocate For Opp. Parties : Ms. B.L. Tripathy, ASC

¶10

CORAM: JUSTICE B.P. ROUTRAY JUDGMENT 3^rd September, 2025

¶11

B.P. Routray, J.

¶12

1 . Heard Mr. A.K. Mohanty, learned counsel for the Petitioner

¶13

and Ms. B.L. Tripathy, learned ASC for State.

¶14

2. The Petitioner served as Lecturer in Political Science since 1^st

¶15

June, 1992 in Biju Pattnaik (Junior) College of Education, Govindapalli in the district of Malkangiri (hereinafter referred as ‘the

¶16

WP(C) No.21593 of 2014

¶17

Page 1 of 9

¶18

Signature Not Verified

¶19

Digitally Signed Signed by: MANAS KUMAR PANDA Designation: Personal Assistant Reason: Authentication Location: OHC, Cuttack Date: 08-Sep-2025 17:54:57

¶20

College’), and subsequently discharged the duties as Principal-incharge-cum-Secretary of said College in the year 2014. While serving as such, the Sub-Collector, Malkangiri in the capacity of President of Governing Body of the College put the Petitioner under suspension contemplating disciplinary proceeding vide his order dated 29^th October, 2014 under Annexure-1. Said order of suspension under Annexure-1 is subject matter of challenge in present writ petition.

¶21

3. It is submitted by Mr. Mohanty, learned counsel for the Petitioner that when the College is admittedly a non-Government aided College within the meaning of Section 3(b) of the Odisha Education Act and governed by The Odisha Education (Establishment, Recognition and Management of Private Colleges / Private Junior Colleges / H.S) Rules, 1991, as amended from time to time, the Sub-Collector has no authority to discharge the duty as President of the Governing Body of the College after incorporation of the Odisha Education (Establishment, Recognition and Management of Private College / Private Junior Colleges / H.S) Amendment Rules, 2001. He further submits that the suspension of the Petitioner cannot be valid after 30 days at any cost without approval of the Director and

¶22

WP(C) No.21593 of 2014

¶23

Page 2 of 9

¶24

Signature Not Verified

¶25

Digitally Signed Signed by: MANAS KUMAR PANDA Designation: Personal Assistant Reason: Authentication Location: OHC, Cuttack Date: 08-Sep-2025 17:54:57

¶26

therefore, such order of suspension of the Petitioner is liable to be quashed.

¶27

4. The State has filed its counter stating that the Sub-Collector is the de-facto President of the Governing Body of such aided Colleges by operation of Rule 130 of the Odisha Education Code and therefore there cannot be any illegality said to have been committed by suspending the Petitioner under Annexure-1.

¶28

5. The admitted fact remains that the college is an aided college and receiving grant-in-aid with effect from 16^th August, 2011 and before suspension the Petitioner was serving as Principal-in-charge of the college. The order of suspension as issued by the Sub-Collector in the capacity of President of the Governing Body is dated 29^th October, 2014 (Annexure-1). It is seen from Annexure-2 that prior to that, on 18^th October, 2014 the State Government in Department of Higher Education nominated the local MLA namely, Dambaru Sisa, as the President of the College vide order No.24266 dated 18^th October, 2014 and then based on the same the Regional Director of Education, Berhampur constituted the Governing Body of the college vide order no.4327 dated 24^th October, 2014 keeping Dambaru Sisa as the President and the Principal-in-charge of the college as the Secretary

¶29

WP(C) No.21593 of 2014

¶30

Page 3 of 9

¶31

Signature Not Verified

¶32

Digitally Signed Signed by: MANAS KUMAR PANDA Designation: Personal Assistant Reason: Authentication Location: OHC, Cuttack Date: 08-Sep-2025 17:54:57

¶33

along with other members. It is submitted by Ms. Tripathy, learned ASC that said order dated 24^th October, 2014 constituting the governing body under Annexure-3 has latter been stayed by this Court in order dated 31^st October, 2014 passed in WP(C) No.20969 of 2014 and as such, the continuance of the Sub-Collector as the President of the Governing Body remained valid as on 29^th October, 2014.

¶34

6. Being asked, neither learned counsel for the Petitioner nor learned State counsel is able to answer about the final outcome of WP(C) No.20969 of 2014. However, on verification from Court website, it is found that said writ petition has been dismissed as withdrawn on 18^th June, 2019. Be that as it may, the status of the college being admitted to be an aided institution, the provisions contained in the Odisha Education (Recruitment and Conditions of Service of Teachers and Members of the Staff of Aided Educational Institutions) Rules, 1974 applies to the service condition of the present Petitioner as a member of aided educational institution. Chapter-VI of said 1974 Rules speaks of disciplinary action and Rule 21 thereof reads as under:-

¶35

“ 21. Disciplinary authorities – (1) The Director may impose any of the penalties specified in rule 20 on any employee:

¶36

WP(C) No.21593 of 2014

¶37

Page 4 of 9

¶38

Signature Not Verified

¶39

Digitally Signed Signed by: MANAS KUMAR PANDA Designation: Personal Assistant Reason: Authentication Location: OHC, Cuttack Date: 08-Sep-2025 17:54:57

¶40

Provided that the Director shall not initiate any disciplinary proceeding unless the Managing Committee or the Governing Body, as the case may be, refuses or neglects to take disciplinary action against any employee.

¶41

(2) Without prejudice to sub-rule (1) but subject to the provisions of sub-rules (3) and (4) any of the penalties specified in Rule 20 may be imposed—

¶42

(a) in respect of a lower grade employee, by the Headmaster or the principal as the case may be, and

¶43

(b) in respect of any other employee, by the Managing Committee or the Governing Body, as the case may be:

¶44

[Provided that in case of suspension of employees failing under Clauses (a) and (b) the prior approval of the Inspector in respect of any employee serving in a School and of the Director in relation to any other employee is obtained:]

¶45

(Provided further that the Managing Committee or the Governing Body, as the case may be, may place an employee under suspension at the initiation of disciplinary proceedings for a period of thirty days, pending approval of Inspector or the Director, as the case may be.]

¶46

(3) No penalty shall be imposed on any employee by an authority other than the authority mentioned in sub rules (1) and (2) hereinafter referred to as the disciplinary authority.

¶47

(4) No penalty shall be imposed on a person appointed to any post in an aided institution on deputation from the (Government except in accordance with the provisions of rule 25.”

¶48

WP(C) No.21593 of 2014

¶49

Page 5 of 9

¶50

Signature Not Verified

¶51

Digitally Signed Signed by: MANAS KUMAR PANDA Designation: Personal Assistant Reason: Authentication Location: OHC, Cuttack Date: 08-Sep-2025 17:54:57

¶52

7. The aforesaid rules mandates that whenever a member of aided

¶53

educational institution is placed under suspension contemplating disciplinary action against him, the approval of the Inspector or the Director, as the case may be, must be obtained within 30 days.

¶54

8. In Adikanda Jena v. State of Odisha and Others, 1990 (I) OLR

¶55

234, while dealing with a question of suspension of a member of the staff of an aided educational institution in terms of Rule 21 of 1974 Rules, this court have observed as follows:-

¶56

“5. The power of suspension of the staff of aided schools is provided under the second proviso to Rule 21(2) of the 1974 Rules and it is stipulated that the managing committee or the governing body, as the case may be, may place an employee under suspension at the initiation of, disciplinary proceedings for a period of thirty days pending approval of the Inspector or the Director, as the case may be. Thus the provision of the Rules empowers the Managing Committee to place an employee under suspension at the initiation of a disciplinary proceeding. Initiation of a disciplinary proceeding does not necessarily mean commencement of such proceeding by service of a charge-sheet, but may also embrace the stages where such proceeding is actively contemplated…….

¶57

xxxxxx xxxxxxx xxxxxxxx

¶58

……..,yet so far as the power of a managing committee or a governing body is concerned, it has been circumscribed by the proviso to the extent that such suspension can be only

¶59

Page 6 of 9

¶60

WP(C) No.21593 of 2014

¶61

Signature Not Verified

¶62

Digitally Signed Signed by: MANAS KUMAR PANDA Designation: Personal Assistant Reason: Authentication Location: OHC, Cuttack Date: 08-Sep-2025 17:54:57

¶63

ordered at the initiation of a disciplinary proceeding for a period of thirty days pending approval of the Inspector or the Director, as the case maybe. Hence, the managing committee of the governing body would not have an unlimited power to place an employee under suspension unless it is made at the initiation of a disciplinary proceeding and when an order of suspension is challenged as being violative of the provision of the proviso, its validity or otherwise is open to be scrutinized by Court.”

¶64

9. In the case at hand, as submitted by the Petitioner, no disciplinary proceeding has yet been initiated against him nor any charge to that effect has been prepared. The State in their counter remains silent on this aspect.

¶65

10. As stated above when the Petitioner was put under suspension on 29^th October, 2014 by order of the Sub-collector acting as President of the Governing Body of the college, it is to be reminded here that it is not the governing body of the college but the President of the governing body. Rule 21 of 1974 Rules authorizes the governing body to suspend a member of the institution pending initiation of the disciplinary proceeding, not more than 30 days from the date of suspension. Here, regardless of the fact that the governing body was re-constituted vide order dated 24^th October, 2014 under Annexure-3 excluding the Sub-Collector as member of the same, the power to

¶66

WP(C) No.21593 of 2014

¶67

Page 7 of 9

¶68

Signature Not Verified

¶69

Digitally Signed Signed by: MANAS KUMAR PANDA Designation: Personal Assistant Reason: Authentication Location: OHC, Cuttack Date: 08-Sep-2025 17:54:57

¶70

suspend an employee of the institution contemplating initiation of disciplinary proceeding cannot be valid for more than 30 days without the approval of competent authority. In the instant case it is not the case of the State that the order of suspension of the Petitioner was approved by the Director of Higher Education as the competent authority within such prescribed statutory limit of 30 days. Rather the State remains complete silent in their counter affidavit as well as in course of hearing on this aspect.

¶71

11. It is submitted on the part of the Petitioner that he is still put under suspension and deprived of his legitimate remuneration. In K. Sukhendar Reddy v. State of A.P., 1999 (6) SCC 257 , the Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed that the suspension perpetuated for indefinite period castigates circumstances where the involved person

¶72

has not been subjected to scrutiny particularly when he has not been proceeded in disciplinary action.

¶73

In State of Andhra Pradesh v. N. Radhakishan, 1998 (4) SCC 154 , the Supreme Court has further observed that it would be fair to make an assumption of prejudice if there is an unexplained delay in

¶74

the conclusion of disciplinary proceeding.

¶75

WP(C) No.21593 of 2014

¶76

Page 8 of 9

¶77

Signature Not Verified

¶78

Digitally Signed Signed by: MANAS KUMAR PANDA Designation: Personal Assistant Reason: Authentication Location: OHC, Cuttack Date: 08-Sep-2025 17:54:57

¶79

12. As stated above, neither approval of the Director has been obtained by the authority in terms of the statutory requirement as per Rule 21 of 1974 Rules nor the disciplinary proceeding has yet been initiated against the Petitioner. In such circumstance without getting into the authority of the Sub-Collector to act as President of the College to pass the order of suspension under Annexure-1, it can safely be concluded that such order of suspension under Annexure-1 without approval of concerned authority till date is completely unsustainable in the eye of law.

¶80

13. In the result the writ petition is allowed and the impugned order of suspension dated 29^th October, 2014 under Annexure-1 is quashed and the authorities are directed to grant all such consequential relief in favour of the Petitioner without delay.

¶81

( B.P. Routray)

¶82

Judge

¶83

M.K. Panda/P.A

¶84

WP(C) No.21593 of 2014

¶85

Page 9 of 9

Sanjaya Ku.Panigrahi v. State

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sanjaya Ku.Panigrahi v. State

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ritanjali Giri@Paul Vs State of Odisha

Kumudini Bagarty Vs Collector,-C-Chairm

Manoranjan Bhuyan Vs Kalpana Bewa @ Bhuyan

Sanjaya Kumar Bal Vs State of Orissa

Bhabani Sen @ Bhabani Kumari Sen Vs Chandrasekhar Das

Sailaja Sankar Kanungo Vs State of Orissa