The court established that quashing a disengagement order does not automatically entitle a petitioner to reinstatement in a contractual role without explicit direction, particularly when there are unresolved inquiries.

Judgment :

SASHIKANTA MISHRA, J.

1. This is the third journey of the petitioner to this Court on more or less the same issue.

2. The facts of this case are that the petitioner was engaged as Gram Rozgar Sevak (GRS) of Gopinathpur Gram Panchayat in Chandbali Block of Bhadrak District. While working as such, a joint enquiry was conducted against him on the allegation that he had violated the model code of conduct along with the Panchayat Secretary during the Panchayati Raj Elections of 2022. On the recommendation of the State Election Commission, Odisha vide letter dated 20.01.2022, the Collector, Bhadrak, vide office order issued on the same date, disengaged the petitioner with immediate effect. The petitioner challenged such order before this Court in W.P.(C) No.10415 of 2022, which was disposed of vide order dated 29.04.2022 granting him liberty to submit a representation before the Collector, who was to consider the same without being influenced by his earlier order.

2.1 The petitioner submitted representation on 04.05.2022, basing on which the Collector initiated Misc. Case No.26 of 2022. In course of hearing, the Collector called for a report from the Block Development Officer (BDO), Chandbali and District Panchayat Officer (DPO), Bhadrak. The BDO submitted a report on 24.05.2022 stating that there was no conclusive evidence with regard to the allegations against the petitioner. The D.P.O. however, submitted a contrary report. The Collector, by order dated 16.06.2022 rejected the representation of the petitioner.

2.2 The petitioner challenged such order of rejection before this Court in W.P.(C) No. 18543 of 2022. A coordinate Bench of this Court, vide order dated 18.10.2023 found that the principles of natural justice had not been followed. Accordingly, the order of disengagement dated 20.01.2022 was quashed with direction to conduct enquiry with due compliance to the principles of natural justice.

2.3 The petitioner thereafter submitted representation before the Collector praying to be reinstated and to conduct enquiry after granting him opportunity of hearing. The Collector, by letter dated 06.03.2024, instructed the Chief Development Officer (CDO) to conduct enquiry following the principles of natural justice and to submit report. The CDO, by letter dated 02.07.2024 instructed the DPO to submit a detailed report. The DPO vide letter dated 11.07.2024 submitted a report stating that the evidence against the petitioner is inconclusive and insufficient and as such, his case for reengagement may be considered sympathetically. Since no action was taken despite such favourable recommendation, the petitioner approached this Court yet again in the present writ application seeking the following relief:

“It is therefore prayed that the Hon’ble court may graciously be pleased to admit the case and call for the records and after hearing both the parties pas the following reliefs:

i) To direct the Opposite Parties to reinstate the petitioner in service as per Judgment dtd. 18.10.2023 passed in W.P.(C) No. 18543 of 2022.

ii) To direct the opposite parties to regularize the service of the petitioner from the date when his juniors have been regularized with all financial and consequential service benefits.

And pass such order/orders as would be deemed fit and proper.

And for this act of kindness, the petitioner as in duty bound shall ever pray.”

3. Counter affidavit has been filed by the CDO, Bhadrak. It is stated that while disposing of the earlier writ application filed by the petitioner (W.P.(C) No. 18543 of 2022), this Court did not whisper anything with regard to reinstatement of t