Mithuna Biswal Vs State of Odisha

For Petitioner : Mr. Jyotirmaya Sahoo, Advocate For Opp. Parties : Mr. S.S. Routray, [Addl. Standing Counsel] _______________________________________________________

¶10

CORAM:

¶11

JUSTICE SASHIKANTA MISHRA

¶12

J U D G M E N T 25.06.2025

¶13

SASHIKANTA MISHRA, J.

¶14

The petitioner was appointed as Jogan Sahayak

¶15

on 28.04.2016 on contractual basis as per order passed

¶16

by the BDO, Buguda. He joined as such in Bhamasiali

¶17

Gram Panchayat under Buguda Block in the district of

¶18

Ganjam. While working as such, he was issued with a

¶19

show cause notice issued by the BDO, Buguda on

¶20

Page 1 of 7

¶21

28.09.2024 alleging that he had remained unauthorizedly absent from duty from 26.09.2024 to 28.09.2024. The petitioner submitted his reply on 29.09.2024, stating that he had proceeded to Surat for collecting e-KYC of migrant workers on the direction of Opposite Party No.5 (Sarpanch). However, without considering the explanation submitted by the petitioner, the Sub-Collector, Bhanjanagar, vide order dated 03.10.2024 directed the BDO to instruct the Sarpanch to disengage the petitioner as Jogan Sahayak with immediate effect. The petitioner has therefore, approached this Court seeking the following

¶22

relief:-

¶23

Under the aforesaid facts and circumstances, it is therefore prayed that this Hon'ble Court may graciously be pleased to:

¶24

(i) Admit and allow this Writ Petition and thereby quash the impugned Order, 18.10.2024, issued by the Opp.Party No.3 for disengagement of the Petitioner from the post of Jogan Sahayk of Bhamasiali G.P. as at Annexure-2 Series by concurrently holding the same, as bad, illegal and is not sustainable and/or maintainable in the eye of law;

¶25

(ii) Direct /order the Opp. Parties to reengage the present petitioner in the aforesaid post, taking into account of his earlier period of service and experience thereof in the interest of justice;

¶26

(iii) Pass such other order(s) or issue direction(s) as may be deemed fit and proper in the bona fide interest of justice;

¶27

And for this act of kindness, the Petitioner as in duty bound shall ever pray.

¶28

Page 2 of 7

¶29

2. Counter affidavit has been filed by the BDO,

¶30

Buguda inter alia, stating as follows:-

¶31

That, it is humbly submitted that, the Petitioner was appointed as Jogan Sahayak of Bhamasiali Gram Panchayat under Buguda Block by the BDO, Buguda vide order dated 28.04.2016 which was approved by the SubCollector, Bhanjanagar vide letter dated 28.04.2016. While the petitioner was working the concerned G.P. as such, it was come to the notice of the block authority that the petitioner without taking permission to leave headquarter, had moved Surat(State-Gujarat) with the e- POS machine to conduct e-KYC of PDS beneficiaries of Bhamasiali GP without taking any prior permission from the lawful authority. He unauthorizedly remained absent from 26.09.2024 to 28.09.2024 and other day also.

¶32

It is pertinent to mention here that, though the petitioner being employed temporarily at Gram Panchayat level, he cannot leave headquarter without prior permission of Sarpanch of concerned GP who is his appointing authority. As such he has committed misconduct, indiscipline and negligence in his duty. Further the post of Jogan Sahayak is purely temporary in nature at GP level with a monthly honorarium (Rs.3500/to Rs.4000/-) as decided in GP meeting and it may be increased Rs.5000/- per month however this amount should not exceed 70% of total amount of commission and they can be terminated and debarred at any time as per the circular of Govt. Odisha from time to time.

¶33

Heard Mr. J. Sahoo, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. S.S. Routray, learned Addl. Standing Counsel for the State.

¶34

The facts of the case are not disputed to the effect that the petitioner while working as Jogan Sahayak had proceeded to Surat to conduct e-KYC of the migrant

¶35

Page 3 of 7

¶36

workers residing there. It is stated he had done so on the instructions of the Sarpanch. In the reply to the show cause, the petitioner has specifically mentioned that because of the migration of large number of beneficiaries from the district of Ganjam to Surat, the e-KYC verification is unable to be conducted for which, he proceeded to Surat after consulting with the Sarpanch, Executive Officer and the Supply Inspector. This particular aspect does not appear to have been considered in the proper perspective by the Sub-Collector before deciding to take the extreme step of disengagement of the petitioner. Nothing has been placed before this Court to show that the petitioner’s action as above was in any way detrimental to the Government Work, rather he appears to

¶37

have proceeded to Surat solely for the purpose of verification of e-KYC of the beneficiaries who had migrated to Surat. This cannot be treated as misconduct in employment under any circumstances. In any case, assuming that he had proceeded to Surat without express permission of the authorities, then also the extreme action

¶38

Page 4 of 7

¶39

of disengagement appears to be grossly disproportionate to his conduct. It is the settled position of law that penalty imposed on an erring employee has to be proportionate to his misconduct and not unduly harsh or even vindictive. In the case of Ranjit Thakur v. Union of India & Others, AIR 1987 SC 2386 the Supreme Court has held as

¶40

follows:-

¶41

“But the sentence has to suit the offence and the offender. It should not be vindictive or unduly harsh. It should not be so disproportionate to the offence as to shock the conscience and amount in itself to conclusive evidence of bias. The doctrine of proportionality, as part of the concept of judicial review, would ensure that even on an aspect which is, otherwise, within the exclusive province of the Court-martial, if the decision of the Court even as to sentence is an outrageous defiance of logic, then the sentence would not be immune from correction. Irrationality and perversity are recognized grounds of judicial review. In Council of Civil Service Unions v. Minister for the Civil Service (1984) 3 WLR 1174 (HL) Lord Deplock said:

¶42

“……Judicial review has I think, developed to a stage today when without reiterating any analysis of the steps by which the development has come about, one can conveniently classify under three heads the grounds upon which administrative action is subject to control by judicial review. The first ground I would call illegality, the second irrationality and the third procedural impropriety. That is not to say that further development on a case by case basis, may not in course of time add further grounds. I have in mind particularly the possible adoption in the future of the principle of proportionality which is recognized in the administrative law of several of our fellow members of the European Economic Community…..”

¶43

In Bhagat Ram v. State of Himachal Pradesh, AIR 1983 SC 454 (at p460) this Court held:

¶44

Page 5 of 7

¶45

“It is equally true that the penalty imposed must be commensurate with the gravity of the misconduct and that any penalty disproportionate to the gravity of the misconduct would be violative of Art.14 of the Constitution.”

¶46

The point to note and empliasise is that all powers have legal limits. In the present case the punishment is so strikingly disproportionate as to call for and justify interference. It cannot be allowed to remain uncorrected in judicial review.”

¶47

The case at hand is one where the petitioner can only be held guilty, if at all, for not taking express permission of the concerned authorities before proceeding to Surat on Government Work. In the considered view of this Court, even if it is accepted as a misconduct, it cannot be treated as so grave or serious as to visit him with the extreme penalty of disengagement.

¶48

6. For the foregoing reasons therefore, this Court is of the considered view that the penal action taken against the petitioner cannot be sustained in the eye of law.

¶49

The writ application is therefore, allowed. The impugned orders dated 03.10.2024, 18.10.2024 and 19.10.2024 are hereby quashed. The Opposite Party authorities are directed to reengage the petitioner as Jogan Sahayak with immediate effect. He shall however, not be entitled to any remuneration for the period of his

¶50

Page 6 of 7

¶51

disengagement, though the said period shall be notionally

¶52

counted for the purpose of other service benefits.

¶53

……..…………………..

¶54

Sashikanta Mishra, Judge

¶55

O rissa High Court, Cuttack, The 25^th of June, 2025/ Puspanjali Ghadai Jr. Steno

¶56

Signature Not Verified

¶57

Digitally Signed Signed by: PUSPANJALI GHADAI Designation: Junior Stenographer Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack. Date: 03-Jul-2025 17:01:11

¶58

Page 7 of 7

Mithuna Biswal v. State of Odisha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mithuna Biswal 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Pramila Samal Vs Odisha State Housing Board

Uma Charan Madkami Vs State of Odisha

Rohit Kumar Harijan Vs State of Odisha

Gurubari Barik Vs Purna Chandra Patra

Aviram Sarangi Vs State of Odisha

Basantilata Panigrahi Vs State of Odisha