Jubak Majhi Vs State of Odisha

“Under the above circumstances it is therefore humbly prayed that the Hon'ble Court be graciously pleased to quash the order of the Director dtd: 09.02.2023 under Annexure-5 and also the order of the Collector, Balasore dtd: 09.02.2023 under Annexure-6 and direct the Opposite Parties to allow the petitioner to perform his duty as District Child Protection Officer, Balasore with all consequential service and financial benefit within a stipulated period as deem fit and proper;

¶18

And/or issue any other appropriate writ/writs, order/orders, direction/directions as deem fit and proper in the fitness of the case;

¶19

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

¶20

// 2 //

¶21

4. It is contended that Petitioner was appointed as against the post of District Child Protection Officer, in the District Child Protection Office, Balasore vide order dtd.02.02.2019 under Annexure-2.

¶22

4.1 . It is contended that while so continuing a show cause was issued by Opposite Party No.2 on 27.10.2022 on different issues and Petitioner on receipt of the same submitted his reply under Annxure-4Series on 31.10.2022.

¶23

4.2 . It is contended that even though such a showcause issued by the Director- Opposite Party No.2 but prior to a decision being taken on the issue involved in the show-cause, a letter was issued by the Addl. Director functioning in the Office of Opposite Party No.2 on 09.02.2023 by requesting the Collector, Opposite Party No.3 disengage the Petitioner and to allow some Government Officers to remain in charge.

¶24

4.3 . It is contended that in terms of said letter issued by the Addl. Director of the Department, Petitioner was disengaged vide the impugned order dtd.09.02.2023 under Annexure-6.

¶25

4.4 . Learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner contended that letter under Annexure-5 was issued by the Addl. Director relying on the letter issued by the Collector-Opposite Party No.3 on 19.09.2022 such a letter was issued by the Collector on 19.09.2022 taking

¶26

Page 2 of 7

¶27

// 3 //

¶28

into account the enquiry conducted by the ADM, Balasore, report of which was submitted on 08.09.2022 under Annexure-K/3 enclosed to the counter affidavit.

¶29

4.5. It is contended that such an enquiry was conducted by the ADM basing on the allegation made against the Petitioner. However, it is contended that Petitioner was never provided with the copy of the complaint basing on which the enquiry was conducted nor Petitioner was given an opportunity to participate in the enquiry. However, relying such an ex-parte enquiry report made by the ADM, Balasore 08.09.2022 and the letter issued by the Collector, Balasore on 19.09.2022 under Annexure-L/3, Petitioner was directed to disengage by the Addl. Directorate vide letter dtd.09.02.2023 under Annexure-5 was carried out with issuance of the impugned order on the very same date by Opposite Party No.3 under Annexure-6.

¶30

4.6. Learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner contended that since the report basing on which, Petitioner was disengaged was never provided to the Petitioner nor Petitioner was given an opportunity to participate in the enquiry such a report could not have been utilized against the Petitioner and Opposite Party No.3 could not have issued such a letter proposing disengagement of the Petitioner.

¶31

Page 3 of 7

¶32

// 4 //

¶33

4.7 . It is also contended that since the show cause issued by Director of the Department under Annexure3 and Petitioner submitted his reply under Annexure-4Series, it is the Director who is competent to take a decision on the issue. But basing on the letter issued by the Addl. Director of the Department under Annexure-5, Petitioner was disengaged vide order under Annexure-6.

¶34

4.8 . It is accordingly contended that the impugned order is not sustainable in the eye of law.

¶35

5. Learned Addl. Government Advocate for the State on the other hand made his submission basing on the stand taken in the counter affidavit. It is contended that while continuing as against the post of DCPO in the district of Child Protection Unit, Balasore, since allegations were made against the Petitioner an enquiry was conducted by the ADM, Balasore till submission of the report on 08.09.2022 under Annexure-K/3. Since the allegation made against the Petitioner was found prove in the report furnished by the ADM, Collector Balasore-Opposite Party No.3 vide letter dtd.19.09.2022 so issued by Opposite Party No.2 requested to take appropriate action against the Petitioner.

¶36

5.1 . It is contended that on receipt of such letter from the Collector, show cause notice was issued by the

¶37

Page 4 of 7

¶38

// 5 //

¶39

Petitioner on 27.10.2022 under Annexure-3, even though the Petitioner submitted his reply under Annexure-4-Series, but since Opposite Party No.2 found that the reply is not on the issue involved the Addl. Director issued the communication on 09.02.2022 under Annexure-5 directing the Collector to disengage the Petitioner in terms of such direction issued by the Addl. Director of the Department, Petitioner was disengaged vide order dtd.09.02.2023 under Annexure-6.

¶40

5 . 2 . It is contended that since the allegation made against the Petitioner was found prove and Petitioner was given a show cause reply of which was not found satisfactorily, no illegality or irregularity can be found with the impugned order of disengagement.

¶41

6 . Having heard learned counsel appearing for the Parties and considering the submissions made, it is found that Petitioner was appointed as DCPO vide order of appointment issued on 02.02.2019 under Annexure-2. As found while so continuing a show cause was issued on 27.10.2022 under Annexure-3 referring to letter dtd.19.09.2022 of the Collector, Balasore, Petitioner was found from the record submitted his reply under Annexure-4-Series.

¶42

6 . 1 . However, it is found that the letter dtd.19.09.2022 which was the subject matter of the show cause was

¶43

Page 5 of 7

¶44

// 6 //

¶45

never enclosed to the show cause issued under Annexure-3, nor the enquiry report basing on which such a letter issued by the Collector on 19.09.2022. Since basing on the report the show cause was issued under Annexure-3 and such a report was not provided to the Petitioner along with the show cause, it is the view of this Court that basing on the said show cause no coercive action could have been taken against the Petitioner.

¶46

6 . 2 . It is also found that such a report was prepared by the ADM, Balasore without given an opportunity of hearing to the Petitioner letter dtd.19.09.2022 was also issued by the Collector-Opposite Party No.3 in terms of the said report submitted by the ADM, Balasore on 08.09.2022. Since the Petitioner was never given an opportunity of hearing till the enquiry conducted by the ADM, a report of which was submitted on 08.09.2022, it is the view of this Court such a report could not have be utilized against the Petitioner with issuance of the show cause under Annexure-3.

¶47

6 . 3 . It is also contended that the show cause issued by Director-Opposite Party No.2, but basing on the letter issued by the Addl. Director of the Department, Petitioner was disengaged vide order dtd.09.02.2023 under Annexure-6 of Opposite Party No.3.

¶48

Page 6 of 7

¶49

// 7 //

¶50

6 . 4 . In view of such illegality & irregularity, which is apparent on the face of the record, this Court is inclined to quash the impugned communication issued by the Addl. Director on 09.02.2023 under Annxure-5 and consequential order passed by the Collector on 09.02.2023 under Annexure-6. This Court while quashing both the orders directs Opposite Party No.2 to take a fresh decision on the issue involved by conducting a fresh enquiry with regard to the allegations made against the Petitioner and by giving opportunity of hearing to the Petitioner to participate in the said enquiry. Basing on such report to be furnished afresh, consequential follow up action can be taken in the matter.

¶51

7 . With the aforesaid observations and directions, the Writ Petition stands disposed of.

¶52

(Biraja Prasanna Satapathy) Judge

¶53

Subrat

¶54

Signature Not Verified

¶55

Digitally Signed Signed by: SUBRAT KUMAR BARIK Reason: Authentication Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CU TTACK Date: 12-Sep-2025 18:13:26

¶56

Page 7 of 7