Compliance with statutory provisions, including the requirement of an inquiry before imposing a major penalty, is essential for a valid termination under the Orissa Education Act.

JUDGMENT :

Biswanath Rath, J. - This writ petition was filed assailing an order dated 5.7.2003 passed by the Presiding Officer, State Education Tribunal as appearing at Annexure-5 to the writ petition.

2. The short background involved in the case is that pursuant to creation of vacancy in the post of Librarian of the College and on the basis of notice inviting applications against the said post by the College Authority, the petitioner submitted his application for the post of Librarian in the Taratarini College. Having been found suitable in an interview, the petitioner was given appointment by the College Authority in the said post on 30.12.1986. Since the petitioner had no appropriate qualification of Bachelor Degree in Library Science, a condition was put in the appointment order requiring the petitioner to acquire the appropriate qualification within a period of one year. His joining report being accepted, he was discharging his duties as Librarian of the College. While he was continuing as such, he suffered from prolonged illness and remained under the treatment at M.K.C.G. Medical College, Berhampur. For better treatment, he had to shift himself to Hinduja Hospital in Bombay and after recovering from his illness, Petitioner submitted his joining report on 5.11.1993. Even though his joining report was accepted, yet he was not allowed to discharge his duty in the post of Librarian of the College on some plea or other and in a surprising attempt, the petitioner was served with a termination order on 2.5.2001. Petitioner challenged the said order of termination before the State Education Tribunal, Bhubaneswar alleging that the order is not only illegal and arbitrary but also in violation of principle of natural justice. Besides, the termination order being passed without following the procedure of law in as much as the provision contained in Rule 22 of the Recruitment Rules, 1974 requiring no imposition of major penalty without following an inquiry. Petitioner also claimed that the order of termination is also bad as it lacks approval of the competent authority following Section 10-A of the Orissa Education Act. The appeal at the instance of the petitioner before the State Education Tribunal was registered as Appeal No.7 of 2001. Following notice in the matter, the opposite party nos.1 and 2 appeared and filed their counter. Upon hearing the parties, the Tribunal finally passed the judgment in Appeal No.7 of 2001. The Tribunal even though categorically held that the order of termination vide Annexure-1 therein as illegal and arbitrary but unfortunately concluded the proceeding holding that the appeal is barred by limitation for having been filed after the stipulation period of limitation. At the same time, the Tribunal also came to hold that the claim of respondent no.2 so far it relates to maintainability of the appeal for non-joinder of party like Kapileswar Das cannot be entertained. The appellate authority further also came to hold the appeal does not appear to be premature based on the submission of the respondents therein that the approval or refusal order thereof has not been communicated to the parties within the time stipulated under Section 10-A(2) of the Orissa Education Act 1969. While concluding the appeal, the Presiding Officer again came to hold that the appeal was disposed of with cost giving liberty to the Governing Body to proceed afresh after obtaining the written approval of the competent authority in the matter of termination of service of the petitioner and further holding that an order of termination with retrospective effect is not recognized in law. It is under the premises of lot of confusions in the conclusion of the appeal, the opposite party nos.1 and 2 filed an application under Rule 26 of the Orissa Education Tribunal Rules, 1977 for Tribunal's exercising inherent power in considering the challenges made therein by the opposite party nos. 1 and 2 against the final order in the appeal. After heari