Back
2025 Supreme(Ori) 448
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
DIXIT KRISHNA SHRIPAD, J.
Tapaswini Pattnaik - Petitioner
Versus
State of Odisha & Others - Opp. Parties
W.P.(C) No. 24111 of 2023
Decided On : 13-11-2025
For the Petitioner:M/s. S.K. Mishra & B.P. Pradhan, Advocates
For the Opp. Parties :Mr. S.B. Mohanty, Addl. Government Advocate, M/s. S.S. Pratap & G.C. Paikaray, Advocates
Termination without the opportunity for a fair hearing violates principles of natural justice, reinforcing employee rights under the Constitution.
Headnote:(A) Constitution of India, Article 14 - Principles of natural justice - Quashment of order - Petitioner’s termination from service contested for lack of opportunity to reverse long absence; Director's refusal to reinstate decided to violate principles of fairness and justice - Strong emphasis on just treatment for employees in service disputes. (Paras 5.1, 5.4, 5.5)
Facts of the case:
Petitioner joined as Lecturer in Sanskrit in 1998, prevented from duties since 2004; dismissal challenged through multiple rounds of legal petitions, with a 2018 appeal allowing rejoining, later disputed post 2022 order favoring another lecturer’s claim. (Paras 1 and 2)
Findings of Court:
Petitioner’s claim for reinstatement substantiated due to lack of just cause for termination; mandate for urgent resolution in employment disputes emphasized. Quashing of impugned order; directive for reinstatement within eight weeks without back wages issued. (Paras 5.6 and 5.7)
Issues: Main legal questions involved the validity of termination without proper notice and the enforcement of rights under Article 14, concerning the principles of natural justice. (Paras 5.2 and 5.3)
Ratio Decidendi: Termination of the petitioner was unlawful due to improper procedure; emphasis on fair hearing rights and the importance of evidentiary substantiation regarding absence from duty. Employment disputes require expedited resolution to protect livelihood and dignity of employees. (Paras 5.4 and 5.5)
Result: Petition succeeded; impugned order quashed, petitioner ordered to be reinstated within eight weeks, with an awarded cost of Rs.20,000/- to be paid timely. (Para 6)
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. factual background of the case. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. arguments presented by both parties. (Para 3 , 4) |
| 3. court's observations on the case. (Para 5) |
JUDGMENT :
PER DIXIT KRISHNA SHRIPAD, J.
Petitioner is invoking writ jurisdiction of this Court seeking quashment of the order dated 28.07.2023 passed by OP No.2 at Annexure-9. The relevant part of the said order reads as under:
“In such view, I am of the opinion that there is no dispute that, Smt. Tapaswini Pattnaik was appointed in the college as a Lect. in Sanskrit Vyakaran. But due to her long absence since October, 2002, the managing committee of the college vide G.B. Resolution 47 dated 09.03.2003 and G.B. Resolution 48 dated 28.06.2003 unanimously terminated her service which was communicated to her vide the college letter no. 195(A) dated 29.06.2003 with prior notice vide letter No. 85 dated 15.04.2002 and appointed Ms. Saralabala Nanda against the vacancy arose due to Smt. Pattnaik's long absence. Ms. Nanda has been working sincerely in the college since her joining till date. Therefore, the claim of Smt. Tapaswini Pattnaik in W.P. (C) No. 17833/2018 to implement the erstwhile DHE(O) Order No. 25884 dated 19.07.2018 and allow her to resume her duty in the College as usual in her original post is rejected being devoid of any merit. On the other hand, Ms. Saralabala Nanda is allowed to continue her duties against the 2nd post of Lecturer in Sanskrit Vyakarana in the college.”
2. Brief facts of the case
2.1. Petitioner joined service as Lecturer in Sanskrit Vyakarana vide letter of appointment dated 15.04.1998. Petitioner was prevented from discharging the duties w.e.f. 16.03.2004. She had filed appeal before the Director-OP No.2 that was kept unconsidered. A co-ordinate Bench of this Court in her WP(C) No. 11860 of 2010 disposed off on 26.07.2010 directed consideration of the appeal. Accordingly, the Director on 19.07.2018 allowed the appeal and instructed Sub-Collector to permit petitioner to rejoin her duties in the College. Petitioner reported for duty on 20.07.2018.
2.2. OP No.5 filed WP(C) No.16089 of 2018 challenging appeal order dated 19.07.2018 made by the Director. Petitioner too filed WP(C) No.17833 of 2018 seeking implementation of said order. Both the petitions were heard and disposed of by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide common order 22.07.2022, whereby matter was remitted back for de novo consideration. The Director, vide order dated 28.07.2023, having considered the matter, rejected petitioner’s claim and favoured that of OP No.5. He further instructed the Governing Body of the Institution to submit papers for approval of her appointment. Aggrieved thereby, petitioner has filed this petition.
3. Submission of counsel for petitioner
3.1. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that:
(i) There is no reason or rhyme for his client to abandon the job, that too in these difficult days of employment; petitioner was appointed after due selection. Her appointment was ratified by the Governing Body, vide Resolution dated 31.05.1998. She was forcibly prevented from discharging her duties w.e.f. 16.03.2004 and this act on the part of Management amounted to removal from service vide Narendra Kumar Choudhury v. State of Orissa, 1994 (II) OLR 218.
(ii) The extant Government Circular provides for departmental appeal and accordingly petitioner’s appeal in terms of this Court’s intervention, as mentioned above, came to be allowed on 19.07.2018 instructing the Sub-Collector to permit her to rejoin duty. Petitioner submitted joining report on the following day. However, as already mentioned, WPs of OP No.5 and of petitioner came to be disposed off by a common order dated 22.07.2022 remanding the matter for fresh consideration after hearing both the parties. The Director, without any reason or rhyme, favoured claim of OP No.5 for approval of her appointment and rejected petitioner’s appeal.
(iii) There is abundant material to demonstrate that petitioner’s appeal was me
