The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for appointments to be made in terms of relevant rules and after proper competition among qualified persons, emphasizing the principles of natural justice and the need for reasons to be recorded in administrative matters.

JUDGMENT :

K.S. Jhaveri, J.

Heard Mr. S.K. Swain, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri M.S. Sahoo, learned Additional Government Advocate for the State opposite parties.

2. By way of this writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the judgment and order dated 08.01.2010 passed by the learned Odisha Administrative Tribunal, Bhubaneswar in O.A. No.593 of 2008, whereby the learned Tribunal has dismissed the original application.

3. Shri Swain, learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the petitioner was originally appointed vide order dated 20.06.1989 (Annexure-1) and subsequently vide order dated 29.01.1999 (Annexure-4) issued by the General Manager, DIC, Ganjam, Berhampur. The relevant portions of the said orders are extracted hereinbelow:

Sri Rabinarayana Panda, S/o. Sri Anata Panda, At-Anka Street, P.O. Parlakhemundi, Dist-Ganjam is appointed temporarily as peon in the existing vacancy for a period of 89 days or till regular appointment is made by Collector, Ganjam whichever is earlier.

xx xx xx

Sri Rabinarayana Panda, S/o. Sri Anata Panda, At-Anka Street, P.O. Parlakhemundi, Dist-Ganjam who belongs to Gen. Category and now working on adhoc basis is here by temporarily appointed as messenger against the vacant post in the scale of pay of Rs.2550-55-2660-60-3200/- with usual D.A. and other allowances as admissible by the Govt. from time to time.

The appointment is purely temporary and can be terminated at any time without assigning any reason there of.

Subsequently his service book and GIS Pass Book were opened and he was allowed annual increments. But the General Manager, DIC, Gajapati passed the impugned order dated 31.05.2007 by which the petitioner was disengaged from service with effect from 31st May, 2007.

4. The main contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that in view of the above facts and circumstances, the petitioner has acquired a right under Article 311 of the Constitution which reads as under:

311. Dismissal, removal or reduction in rank of persons employed in civil capacities under the Union or a State.-

(1) No person who is a member of a civil service of the Union or an all-India service or a civil service of a State or holds a civil post under the Union or a State shall be dismissed or removed by an authority subordinate to that by which he was appointed.

(2) No such person as aforesaid shall be dismissed or removed or reduced in rank except after an inquiry in which he has been informed of the charges against him and given a reasonable opportunity of being heard in respect of those charges.

Provided that where it is proposed after such inquiry, to impose upon him any such penalty, such penalty may be imposed on the basis of the evidence adduced during such inquiry and it shall not be necessary to give such person any opportunity of making representation on the penalty proposed:

Provided further that this clause shall not apply-

(a) where a person is dismissed or removed or reduced in rank on the ground of conduct which has led to his conviction on a criminal charge; or

(b) where the authority empowered to dismiss or remove a person or to reduce him in rank ins satisfied that for some reason, to be recorded by that authority in writing, it is not reasonably practicable to hold such inquiry; or

(c) where the President or the Governor, as the case may be, is satisfied that in the interest of the security of the State, it is not expedient to hold such inquiry.

(3) If, in respect of any such person as aforesaid, a question arises whether it is reasonably practicable to hold such inquiry as is referred to in clause (2), the decision thereon of the authority empowered to dismiss or remove such person or to reduce him in rank shall be final.

Therefore, the petitioner had a right to be heard before termination/disengagement from service. In support of his contention, learned counsel for the petitioner has strongly relied upon para-8 of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Shridhar S