The disengagement of an employee must be made consistently with the rule of audi alteram partem, and any action taken by the employer against an employee must be fair, just, and reasonable, as it is a requirement of natural justice and Article 14 of the Constitution.

JUDGMENT :

Biraja Prasanna Satapathy, J.

1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Mode.

2. Heard Mr. L.K. Mohanty, learned counsel for the Petitioner and Mr. N. Prusty, learned counsel for the Opposite Parties.

3. The Petitioner has filed the present Writ Petition for the following relief:-

“(i) The Original Application be allowed;

(ii) The retrenchment order dtd.17.9.2009 under Annexure-4 be quashed/set-aside;

(iii) The Respondents be directed to regularize the period of service from 17.9.2009 to 30.6.2011 treating as duty with all service benefits;

(iv) The Respondents be directed to regularize the service as a regular teacher on completion of 6 years of service treating date of appointment as 15.12.2008 under Annexure-1;

(v) Such other order/orders be passed granting complete relief in favour of the Applicant.”

4. It is submitted by Mr. Mohanty, learned counsel for the Petitioner that after facing due recruitment process and on being duly selected the Petitioner vide order under Annexure-1 dtd.15.12.2008 was engaged as a Contract Teacher by the Opp. Party No.3.

5. Pursuant to the said order, the Petitioner joined in his post on 26.12.2008. It is submitted that while so continuing, when the Petitioner was arrested by the Local police of Rajnagar Police Station on 22.04.2009 and the Petitioner remained in custody till 28.04.2009, the Opp. Party No.3 without issuing any show cause straight away disengaged the Petitioner vide order dt.17.09.2009.

6. It is submitted that the Petitioner subsequently was acquitted in the aforesaid G.R. Case No.173/2009 vide Judgment dtd.03.04.2010 of the learned J.M.F.C., Pattamundei. It is further submitted that on his acquittal by the learned Trial Court on 03.04.2010, the Petitioner moved the Opp. Party No.3 on 10.05.2010 under annexure-6 with a prayer to reengage him as he has been honorably acquitted in the said criminal case. It is further submitted that on consideration of such application, Opp. Party No.3 re-engaged the Petitioner vide Order dtd.01.07.2011 under Annexure-7 and the Petitioner accordingly rejoined in his post. It is submitted by Mr. Mohanty, learned counsel for the Petitioner that persons similarly placed and appointed along with the Petitioner on 15.12.2008 were regularised as Trained Graduate Teacher, on completion of 6 years of service vide order dtd.08.09.2015 of the Opp. Party No.3.

7. It is submitted that in view of such illegal disengagement of the Petitioner, the Petitioner was deprived from the purview of such regularization. It is further submitted that the Petitioner was regularized only w.e.f. 01.07.2017 i.e. after completion of 6 years of service from 01.07.2011. Mr. Mohanty, learned counsel for the Petitioner accordingly prayed that since the Petitioner was illegally disengaged from his service only because of his arrest in a Criminal case and that too without issuing any show cause, the said disengagement is illegal and the break in service for the period of 17.09.2009 to 30.06.2011 is to be treated as duty period for all purposes. It is also prayed that the Petitioner is also entitled for his regularization with effect from the completion of 6 years of service, to be counted from 15.12.2008.

8. Mr. Mohanty in support of his aforesaid submission relied on a decision of this Court reported in the case of Jyotirmayee Naik Vrs. Superintendent, S.C.B. Medical College, Cuttack reported in 1996 (I) OLR 561.

9. It is submitted that in the aforesaid decision of this Court, it has been held that a person against whom an order to his prejudice is made should be informed of the allegation and charges against him and he should be given opportunity to submit explanation. This Court in the aforesaid decision in Para 7 held as follows:-

“The precise and exact question that arises for consideration is whether the rule of audi alteram partem that is, hear the other side was complied with before the adverse decision was taken against the petitioner. It is now well settled that an administrat