SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(Ori) 114

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

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellant :Mr.Subir Palit, Senior Advocate with Mr. Niranjan Nayak, Advocate.
For the Respondent:Mr. Jayant Kumar Bal, AGA, Mr. Ashok Mohanty, Senior Advocate along with Mr.G.P. Dutta, Advocate

Termination of a probationer's service does not require adherence to natural justice unless it is stigmatic in nature.

Headnote:The present Writ Petition seeks to quash an order dated 02.03.2024 terminating the Petitioner’s service as Company Secretary. The Court must consider whether the termination was justified and adhered to principles of natural justice. The key issue is whether the termination was stigmatic or a termination simpliciter without grounds necessitating procedural safeguards. The Court concluded the termination was properly classified as a termination simpliciter, thus not invoking the protections under Article 311.

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

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top