Termination of service without providing an opportunity to respond to allegations violates natural justice, rendering the action illegal. Administrative resolutions cannot override judicial awards confirming employee rights.

JUDGMENT :

S.K. Mishra, J.

This writ petition has been preferred assailing the decision of the Authority dated 23.11.2016 along with the Agenda dated 19.11.2016 under Annexure-7, vide which the Petitioner’s claim for regularization of his service stood rejected. The Petitioner also seeks direction to the Opposite Parties to reinstate him in service and to regularize him as a Clerk with effect from 06.08.2010 in parity with similarly placed DLR employees in terms of the Award of the Labour Court under Annexure-1, so also payment of back wages to the Petitioner within a stipulated period.

2. The brief facts leading to the filing of the writ petition are that, the Petitioner was engaged as a DLR Assistant (Clerk) in the Bhubaneswar Development Authority (BDA) on 03.08.1994 and continued to discharge his duties uninterruptedly to the satisfaction of the authorities. As several similarly placed DLR employees, including the Petitioner, had completed substantial years of service, the Employees’ Association (BDA Workers’ Association) raised an industrial dispute seeking regularization of their services. Conciliation being failed, the dispute/demand of the Union for regularization of service of 113 workmen was referred by the State Government to the Labour Court, Bhubaneswar for adjudication and registered as I.D. Case No.74 of 2003. Ultimately the Labour Court, Bhubaneswar passed an Award dated 30.12.2004, directing regularization of services of all the concerned workmen, including the Petitioner. Subsequently, the said Award attained finality after dismissal of W.P.(C) No. 5319 of 2005 on 11.01.2010 by this Court, so also SLP (Civil) No. 20736 of 2010 by the Supreme Court on 06.08.2010, which were preferred by the BDA.

2.1. While awaiting regularization of his service in terms of the Award passed in. I.D. Case No.74 of 2003, the Petitioner was relieved from Information Section of BDA on 05.01.2007. Pursuant to the same, though he gave his joining report before the Establishment Officer on 06.01.2007 for a suitable posting, he was not assigned any duty .But later on he was allowed to sign the attendance register. During continuance of service, a charge-sheet was issued to the Petitioner on 24.10.2008 for alleged unauthorized absence. An explanation was submitted on 31.10.2008 denying the allegations. An enquiry was allegedly conducted by the OSD (Legal) behind the back of the Petitioner. Without furnishing the Enquiry Report or affording opportunity of hearing, the Petitioner was disengaged from service on 20.11.2009, in violation of principles of natural justice.

2.2. Being aggrieved, the Petitioner preferred an Appeal on 11.03.2010 before the Chairman, BDA. The said Appeal being placed before the Authority of BDA, in the Authority Meeting dated 10.11.2010, it was resolved to re- engage the Petitioner with a warning. It was further resolved that his case for regularization would be considered like other DLR employees. However, no administrative order of posting was issued in compliance with the said Resolution of the Authority. Consequently, after dismissal of SLP (Civil) No. 20736 of 2010 on 06.08.2010, services of all other similarly placed 112 employees named in the Award were regularized. However, the Petitioner’s case remained pending due to delay in acting in terms of the proceeding meeting dated 10.11.2010.

2.3. Subsequently, in its 133rd Meeting dated 23.11.2016, the Authority rejected the Petitioner’s claim for regularization by relying on