Back
2009 Supreme(Ori) 769
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA
B.P. Ray, B.P. Das, JJ.
BASANT KUMAR PATNAIK - APPELLANT
Versus
STATE OF ORISSA AND OTHERS - RESPONDENT
Decided On : 21-04-2009
The central legal point established in the judgment is the requirement of reasonableness, fairness, and non-arbitrariness in administrative actions, emphasizing the principles of natural justice and compliance with Article 14 and Article 21.
Headnote:
Natural Justice - Employment Termination - Orissa Civil Service (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 1962 - Article 14, Article 21 - [FINANCIAL CONTROLLER-CUM-SECRETARY] - [EMPLOYMENT TERMINATION] - [Orissa Civil Service (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 1962, Rule-15] - The court discussed the appointment order, termination order, and subsequent disciplinary proceedings. The court emphasized the principles of natural justice and fairness in administrative actions, citing the case of Mrs. Maneka Gandhi Vs. Union of India, and held that the termination orders were unreasonable, arbitrary, and lacked fair play, thus quashing the orders and awarding back wages to the petitioner.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner was appointed as Financial Controller-cum-Secretary and terminated after serving for more than fifteen years. The appeal filed by the petitioner was not disposed of timely, and subsequent disciplinary proceedings led to the termination order being challenged in the writ application.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the termination orders lacked compliance with the principles of natural justice and fairness, and were unreasonable and arbitrary. The court quashed the termination orders and awarded back wages to the petitioner.
Issues: The issues involved the compliance with the principles of natural justice in the termination of the petitioner's employment and the subsequent disciplinary proceedings.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the requirement of reasonableness, fairness, and non-arbitrariness in administrative actions, citing Article 14 and Article 21. It held that the termination orders failed to meet these requirements and quashed the orders.
Final Decision: The court allowed the writ application, quashed the termination orders, and awarded back wages to the petitioner.
JUDGMENT :
B.P. Das, J. - The Petitioner, on being selected by the Selection Committee headed by the Secretary to the Govt. of Orissa in Tourism Department-Opposite Party No. 1, was, appointed as Financial Controller-cum-Secretary in the Orissa Tourism Development Corporation (hereinafter Corporation) by Order Dated 29.08.1988 (Annexure-1). The Petitioner after serving the Corporation for more than fifteen years was terminated from service by the Order Dated 30.06.2003 (Annexure-2) passed by the Managing Director of the Corporation-Opposite Party No. 2. Aggrieved by the said order of termination, the Petitioner on 08.07.2003 filed an appeal before the Chairman of the Corporation-Opposite Party No. 3. Since the Chairman did not dispose of the appeal, the Petitioner approached this Court in a writ application bearing W.P.(C) No. 3321 of 2004, which was disposed of on 23.11.2004 with a direction to the Opposite Parties to dispose of the appeal filed by the Petitioner within a period of two months from the date of receipt of the order. On receipt of the aforesaid order of this Court, Opposite Party No. 3, on 08.07.2005 disposed of the appeal filed by the Petitioner with a direction to the Managing Director to hear the Petitioner & dispose of the appeal by a speaking order as the Disciplinary Authority while imposing major penalty had not followed the principle of natural justice. On 21.11:2005, Opposite Party No. 2 without conducting any enquiry as provided under Rule-15 of the Orissa Civil Service (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 1962 passed the order of termination vide Annexure-6, even though the Petitioner was superannuated since 31.01.2005. The said order under Annexure-6 is now impugned in this writ application.
2. Though counter affidavit has not yet been filed in this case, yet the entire record pertaining to this case was produced before us by the Counsel for the Opposite Parties.
3. Mr. Acharya, appearing for Opposite Parties 2 & 3 submits that since the Petitioner was an ad hoc employee, the question of affording opportunity of hearing did not arise. That apart, the Petitioner was not qualified to hold the aforesaid post, hence the order of termination.
4. Before considering the merits & the contentions of the Opposite Parties, we refer to Annexure-1, the appointment order of the Petitioner dated 29.08.1988, which indicates that the Petitioner was appointed as Financial Controller-cum-Secretary in the Head Office of the Corporation in the scale of pay of Rs. 2550-3650 & his appointment was purely temporary terminable at any time without prior notice & without assigning any reason thereof. The undisputed fact is that the Petitioner has served the Corporation for a period of fifteen years. Annexure 2, the order of termination of the Petitioner dated 30.06.2003, indicates that the service of Sri Basanta Kumar Pattnaik, Financial Controller-cum-Secretary of the Corporation, stands terminated with effect from 30.06.2003 afternoon & in consideration of his long services rendered to the Corporation, the Management was pleased to pay him three months' salary in addition to the terminal benefits due to him.
5. Challenging the order of termination dated 30.06.2003 passed by Opposite Party No. 2, the Petitioner filed an appeal before Opposite Party No. 3, who passed the Order Dated 08.07.2005, in Annexure 4 remanding the mater to the Managing Director. The relevant portion the order passed by Opposite Party No. 3 is extracted herein below:
xxx xxx xxx
5. From a perusal of records I find that charges were framed against the Appellant vide letter No. 1277/OTDC dt. 11.03.2003. The Appellant submitted his written explanation in this regard. The Managing Director then issued an office order No. 3427/P-OTDC dt.30.06.2003 terminating his service with effect from 30th June, 2003 & paying him three months salary in addition to the terminal benefits due to him.
6. In my opinion, due opportunity should have been given for personal hearing o
