IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
A.K.MOHAPATRA, J.
Jitendriya Mohanty - Appellant
Versus
State of Odisha and Another - Respondents
W.P.(C) No.5191 of 2024
Decided on : 28-07-2025
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. contentions of the petitioner regarding the arbitrary nature of termination. (Para 6 , 8 , 11) |
JUDGMENT :
A.K. Mohapatra, J.
1. The present Writ Petition has been filed with a prayer to quash the impugned order No.5190 dated 02.03.2024, under Annexure-6 to the Writ Petition and the impugned advertisement dated 03.03.2024, under Annexure-7 to the present Writ Petition. Along with a further prayer to direct the Opposite Parties, particularly Opposite Party No.2 to allow the Petitioner to continue as the Company Secretary in the “Odisha Police Housing & Welfare Corporation Ltd.” And extend all consequential service benefits as are due and admissible to the Petitioner.
FACTS
2. A concise overview of the facts leading to the filing of the present Writ Petition is as follows; initially, the Odisha State Police Housing & Welfare Corporation Ltd. (herein referred to as “the Corporation”) floated an online advertisement dated 10.07.2023, a copy of which has been attached as Annexure-1 to the present Writ Petition, inviting prospective applications for appointment to the sanctioned regular post of Company Secretary, with 14.08.2023 fixed as the last date for applying to the said post. Following such advertisement, the Petitioner sent his application dated 03.08.2023, under Annexure-2. After the Petitioner had submitted his application, he received a letter No.l1776/OPHWC dated 24.08.2023, under Annexure-3 to the present Writ Petition, issued by the DGM (Admn.), requesting him (the Petitioner) to appear at the Corporate Office of the Odisha State Police Housing & Welfare Corporation Ltd. for the Personal Interview scheduled to be held on 01.09.2023.
3. Subsequently, the Petitioner along with some other candidates appeared for the Personal Interview before a panel comprising of the Chairman, one Independent Director and one domain expert. In the end, the Petitioner stood successful in the interview process and was offered appointment vide Office Order No.18125/OPHWC dated 02.09.2023, annexed to the Writ Petition as Annexure-4. The appointment of the Petitoner has also been approved at the 152nd Board meeting of the Corporation (a copy of the minutes of the said meeting has been attached as Anexure-5 to the Writ Petition). Following his appointment, the Petitioner has joined in his duty on 03.10.2023.
4. While the matter stood thus, the Petitioner was continuing in his post. On 02.03.2024, the Petitioner had availed sick leave and during his sick leave, the Petitioner received a termination letter No.5190/OPHWC dated 02.03.2024, annexed to the present Writ Petition as Annexure-6, wherein the Petitioner was communicated that his service has been terminated with immediate effect and he has been directed to handover the charge to Shri Manoranjan Mohapatra, the Financial Advisor of the Corporation. Aggrieved by the aforesaid letter of termination, under Annexure-6, the Petitioner has approached this court with the prayer as made hereinabove.
CONTENTIONS OF THE PETITIONER
5. Heard Mr.Subir Palit, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Petitioner along with Mr. Niranjan Nayak, learned counsel. The Learned Senior Counsel for the Petitioner, at the outset, has questioned the legality of the impugned termination order dated 02.03.2024, under Annexure-6, on the ground that the termination order is wholly unjustified and un- sustainable in law. It is the contention of the Learned Senior Counsel for the Petitioner that the impugned termination order has been issued by the Opposite Party No.2 without following the well-established principles of natural justice. Referring to the said termination order dated 02.03.2024, the Learned Senior Counsel for the Petitioner further submitted that the Opposite Party No.2 has not given any opportunity of hearing to the present Petitioner before issuing such termination order. Moreover, the aforesaid termination order also does not reflect any grounds on which the Petitioner’s service has been terminated
Termination of a probationer's service does not require adherence to natural justice unless it is stigmatic in nature.
If misconduct is the foundation to pass the order, then an enquiry into misconduct should be conducted and an action according to law should follow. But if it is (sic) notice, it is not incumbent upo....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the distinction between termination simpliciter and punitive termination based on the nature of the inquiry and the purpose of the termination.
Termination of a contractual employee based on an FIR does not constitute a stigmatic termination if the service agreement allows termination without inquiry.
Termination of probationer under temporary service rules, though innocuous on face, is punitive if founded on misconduct allegations requiring inquiry and natural justice, notwithstanding withdrawal ....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.