Long unauthorized absence from employment constitutes abandonment of service, justifying termination without reinstatement.

JUDGMENT :

KRISHNA SHRIPAD DIXIT, J.

1. This Intra-Court appeal by a Sikhya Sahayak i.e. teacher, who having abandoned her service was disengaged from the post, now seeks to lay challenge to a Learned Single Judge’s order dated 04.07.2023 whereby her W.P(C) No. 19016 of 2023 was negatived essentially with the following observation:

“3. The petitioner has filed this writ petition challenging the disengagement order vide No. 1922 dated 20.10.2020 passed by Chief Executive Officer-cum- Collector, Zillaparisad, Gajapati on the ground of unauthorized absence since 20.06.2013 till date.

4. During course of hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner has failed to produce any authorization letter with respect to long unauthorized absent before the Court. Hence, this Court does not find any infirmity in the order passed by the District Project Office, RTE-SSA, Gajapati. Accordingly the writ petition is dismissed.”

2. Ld. Counsel appearing for the Appellant vehemently argues that his client was appointed as Sikhya Sahayak for Upper Primary School, Gobindapur vide Engagement letter No. 819 dated 20.04.2011; she was disengaged from service vide order dated 20.10.2020; she had filed a representation to rescind disengagement on 12.01.2021; the same having not been considered duly, there was a choate cause of action on which the Appeal was structured; however Ld. Single Judge having not treated the same in right perspective, indulgence of this Court is eminently warranted. Ld. AGA appearing for the State & its officials per contra opposes the appeal making submissions in justification of the order. He contends that the Appellant’s Disengagement Order is valid on account of long unauthorized absence from service. The said Order issued by Respondent No. 3 reads as under:

“Disengagement Order

Smt. Suchitra Mahapatra, Sikshya Sahayak, UPS Govindapur is long and unauthorized absence since 20 06.2013 for whatsoever the reason the very purpose of her engagement was defeated. Moreover, their curricular progress suffered the most, which is unrecoverable loss and that cannot be fulfilled by the authorities.

That her unauthorized absence in assignment has led to the breach of terms and conditions as stipulated in the contract agreement and contractual engagement order. That consequent upon the above reasons and as per Para no. 4.4 of Government Resolution No. H-SME/LMC- 150/06-637/SME dated 10.01.2008 of School and Mass Education Deptt. Odisha, Smt. Suchitra Mahapatra is hereby disengaged from the post of Sikshya Sahayak w.e.f the date of issue of this order.

By the order of Collector-cum-CEO. ZP, Ganjam

Sd/-...”

3. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the appeal papers, we decline indulgence in the matter for the following reasons.

3.1. The Appellant sought intervention of Appellate Court after brooking a long delay of 592 days. An application is filed in I.A No. 1570 of 2025 supported by an Affidavit seeking its condonation. A perusal of the same does not make out a plausible explanation for the long delay. Casual facts are stated, that would happen in the routine way bureaucracy. Condoning delay on such explanation would amount to defeating the statutory purpose of prescribing limitation. Therefore, the application is liable to be rejected. However, we would like to undertake examination of matter on merits.

3.2. The Appellant has unauthorisedly abandoned her service as teacher from 20.06.2013; i.e. roughly for a long period of 7 years. A formal Disengagement Order came to be issued on 20.10.2020. It is clear that she has made no attempt whatsoever in these 7 years to resume her duty. She never bothered about the fate of school children, whom she had to teach. On the contrary, she was more bothered about her family. W