ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK
B.R.SARANGI, G.SATAPATHY, JJ.
Ramesh Sahoo – Petitioner
Versus
State of Odisha and others - Opp. Parties
W.P.(C) no. 7612 of 2019
Decided On : 28-10-2022
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. factual background of petitioner’s employment and discharge (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. arguments regarding violation of service jurisprudence (Para 3 , 4) |
| 3. court's observations on procedural fairness and jurisprudential standards (Para 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9) |
| 4. jurisprudential precedents on termination due to absence (Para 10 , 11 , 12 , 13) |
| 5. legal ruling on automatic termination and principles of natural justice (Para 14 , 15) |
| 6. conclusion and order to quash termination (Para 16) |
JUDGMENT :
B.R. SARANGI, J.
The petitioner, who was working as a Cook under the administrative control of opposite party no.3, has filed this writ petition seeking to quash the order dated 27.02.2019 passed in O.A. No. 2845 (C) of 2015 under Annexure-14, by which the Odisha Administrative Tribunal, Cuttack Bench, Cuttack has dismissed the Original Application filed by the petitioner without interfering with the order of disengagement under Annexure-7 dated 06.11.2013, so far as it relates to him, as well as order of rejection of his representation dated 13.07.2015 under Annexure-11, which was passed in pursuance of the order dated 03.03.2015 passed by the Odisha Administrative Tribunal, Bhubaneswar in O.A. No. 1081 of 2014.
2. The brief facts leading to filing of this writ petition are that the opposite party no.3 issued an advertisement to fill up the post of Cook. Pursuant to such advertisement, the petitioner submitted his application and the same having found in order he was issued with a call letter on 25.06.2009 to participate in the process of selection. Thereafter, the petitioner was selected and appointed as Cook in the office of opposite party no.3-Commandant, Special Operation Group, Chandaka, Bhubaneswar, vide appointment letter issued on 21.08.2009, on contractual basis for a period of six years. While the petitioner was discharging his duties, on 23.04.2011, he was selected for a Special Training Course, i.e., PCIC-39 to be held in the Training Centre, National Security Guard, Maheswar Post, Gurgaon, Haryana. While he was on duty under SOG, the petitioner suffered from serious fever and jaundice and treated by the Doctor of CHC, Papadahandi in the district of Nabarangpur on 02.09.2013. As he could not be cured by the treatment, the doctor advised him for referral treatment and also bed rest. Consequentially, he applied for leave to Team in-charge Officer, Dy. Subedar, Papadahandi in the district of Nabarangpur which was also sanctioned, as he was suffering from jaundice and fever.
2.1 As he was not cured from the fever and jaundice and the same was increasing day by day, Medical Officer, CHC, Jatni in the district of Khurda advised him to take complete bed rest by continuing medicine for the period from 25.09.2013 to 20.11.2013. During the said period he was undergoing treatment and on the basis of medical prescription he was taking complete bed rest by continuing medicines. But as per office order bearing BO No.22 dated 06.11.2013, the petitioner was discharged from contractual service by the Commandant, SOG, Chandaka, Bhubaneswar owing to remaining absent w.e.f. 21.09.2013 to 30.09.2013, though the authority had sanctioned the leave for the said period. As such, the said order of discharge was passed as per Clause-(i) of the Office Memorandum No.23689 dated 23.06.2012 of the Finance Department.
2.2 Thereafter, though the petitioner filed three representations in writing before the D.G. of Police, I.G. (Operation) of Police and Commandant, SOG, Chandaka, Bhubaneswar on 05.12.2013, but the same were not considered. Finding no other way out, the petitioner filed O.A. No. 1081 of 2014, which was disposed of by the tribunal by order dated 03.03.2015 directing opposite party no.2 to consider and dispose of the representation filed by the petitioner in accordance with law by giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. In pursuance of the order passed by the tribunal, opposite party no.2, vide order dated 13.07.2015 rejected the represe
Krushnakant B. Parmar v. Union of India
Laxman Dundappa Dhamanekar and others v. Management of Vishwa Bharata Seva Samiti and others
Automatic termination of service without offering an opportunity for explanation violates principles of natural justice, rendering it null and void.
The judgment establishes that all government employees, regardless of their employment status, are entitled to the protections of Article 311, which mandates due process in disciplinary actions, incl....
Termination of a probationer must not cast stigma without due process; otherwise, it is deemed illegal and arbitrary.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the respondents must act fairly and justly, conduct a fair inquiry, and adhere to the principles of fair-play, good conscience, and natural ju....
Proper procedure for imposing major penalty and conducting/initiating an inquiry for unauthorized absence must be followed before terminating an employee from service.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.