Back
2025 Supreme(Ori) 450
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
DIXIT KRISHNA SHRIPAD, J.
Tapaswini Pattnaik – Appellant
Versus
State of Odisha & Others – Respondents
W.P.(C) NO. 24111 OF 2023
Decided On : 13-11-2025
For the Appellant :M/s. S.K. Mishra & B.P. Pradhan, Advocates
For the Respondents:Mr. S.B. Mohanty, Addl. Government Advocate, M/s. S.S. Pratap & G.C. Paikaray, Advocate
Termination without due process and lack of proper notification constitutes a violation of natural justice principles, necessitating reinstatement.
Headnote:(A) Odisha Educational Procedure - Principles of Natural Justice - Employment Law - Quashing of administrative order terminating service due to absence - The case addresses illegal termination without due cause and lack of proper notice, emphasizing employees’ rights to fair hearing and procedure. (Paras 5.1 to 5.6)
(B) The court found that mere absence does not equate to abandonment of job and that proper procedure, as mandated by law, must be followed when terminating an employee. (Paras 5.1 and 5.4)
(C) Natural justice principles dictate that even in service disputes, a reasonable opportunity to be heard must be afforded. (Paras 5.4 and 5.6)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner was appointed in 1998 and allegedly abandoned the job in 2004, leading to a series of legal challenges until the Director rejected her claim in 2023.
Findings of Court:
The evidence of absence without a valid cause was not substantiated; thus, the termination was deemed illegal. The court ruled in favor of reinstatement.
Issues: The key issue was whether the termination was valid given the absence and failure to serve notice.
Ratio Decidendi: The lack of evidence to support claims of abandonment and violation of natural justice principles constituted the basis for quashing the termination order.
Result: Writ issued for reinstatement of service within eight weeks.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. facts regarding the employment and absence of petitioner. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. arguments of petitioner and respondents regarding employment termination. (Para 3 , 4) |
| 3. court's observations on the case's merits. (Para 5) |
JUDGMENT :
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
