Disengagement of an individual without due process violates the right to fair hearing under natural justice principles, necessitating quash of the order.

JUDGMENT :

Biraja Prasanna Satapathy, J.

1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual/Physical) Mode.

2. Heard learned counsel appearing for the Parties.

3. Petitioner has filed the present Writ Petition inter alia with the following prayer:-

“Under the above circumstances it is therefore humbly prayed that the Hon’ble Court be graciously pleased to quash the order of the Director dtd: 09.02.2023 under Annexure-5 and also the order of the Collector, Balasore dtd: 09.02.2023 under Annexure-6 and direct the Opposite Parties to allow the petitioner to perform his duty as District Child Protection Officer, Balasore with all consequential service and financial benefit within a stipulated period as deem fit and proper;

And/or issue any other appropriate writ/writs, order/orders, direction/directions as deem fit and proper in the fitness of the case;

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

4. It is contended that Petitioner was appointed as against the post of District Child Protection Officer, in the District Child Protection Office, Balasore vide order dtd.02.02.2019 under Annexure-2.

4.1. It is contended that while so continuing a show cause was issued by Opposite Party No.2 on 27.10.2022 on different issues and Petitioner on receipt of the same submitted his reply under Annxure-4-Series on 31.10.2022.

4.2. It is contended that even though such a show- cause was issued by the Director- Opposite Party No.2, but prior to a decision being taken on the issue involved in the show-cause, a letter was issued by the Addl. Director functioning in the Office of Opposite Party No.2 on 09.02.2023, by requesting the Collector, Opposite Party No.3 to disengage the Petitioner and to allow some Government Officer to remain in charge of the Office.

4.3. It is contended that in terms of such letter issued by the Addl. Director of the Department under Annexure-5, Petitioner was disengaged vide the impugned order dtd.09.02.2023 under Annexure-6 of Opp. Party No. 3.

4.4. Learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner contended that letter under Annexure-5 was issued by the Addl. Director, relying on the letter issued by the Collector-Opposite Party No.3 on 19.09.2022 and such a letter was issued by the Collector on 19.09.2022, taking into account the enquiry conducted by the ADM, Balasore, report of which was submitted on 08.09.2022 under Annexure-K/3, so enclosed to the counter affidavit.

4.5. It is contended that such an enquiry was also conducted by the ADM basing on some allegations made against the Petitioner. However, it is contended that Petitioner was never provided with the copy of the complaint basing on which the enquiry was conducted nor Petitioner was given an opportunity to participate in the enquiry. However, relying on such an ex-parte enquiry report made by the ADM, Balasore 08.09.2022 under Annexure-K/3 and the letter issued by the Collector, Balasore on 19.09.2022 under Annexure- L/3, Petitioner was directed to be disengaged by the Addl. Director vide letter dtd.09.02.2023 under Annexure-5. Such direction was carried out with issuance of the impugned order on the very same date by Opposite Party No.3 on 09.02.2023 under Annexure-6.

4.6. Learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner contended that since the ex parte report, basing on which, Petitioner was disengaged, was never provided to the Petitioner nor Petitioner was given an opportunity to participate in the enquiry with service of the complaint, such a report could not have been utilized against the Petitioner and Opposite Party No.3 could not have issued such a letter on 09.02.2023 under Annexure-5 proposing disengagement of the Petiti