Orissa High Court
Birendra Kumar Panda vs State Of Odisha & Ors. ..... Opp. Parties on 25 August, 2021
Author: B.R. Sarangi
Bench: B.R. Sarangi
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
WPC (OAC) No. 824 of 2009
Birendra Kumar Panda ..... Petitioner
Mr.D.K. Panda, Advocate
- Versus-
State of Odisha & Ors. ..... Opp. Parties
Mr. M. Balabantaray,
Standing Counsel for the State
CORAM:
DR. JUSTICE B.R. SARANGI
ORDER
25.08.2021 Order No. This matter is taken up through hybrid mode.
042. Heard Mr. D.K. Panda, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. M. Balabantaray, learned Standing Counsel for the State.
3. The petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking to quash Annexure-8 dated 06.03.2009, by which promotion of the petitioner from UG Librarian to Assistant Librarian has been cancelled, so also Annexure-10 dated 18.03.2009, by which promotion of the petitioner from Library Assistant to UG Librarian has been cancelled, and to issue direction to the opposite parties to grant arrear service/financial benefits retrospectively.
4. Mr. D.K. Panda, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the orders in Annexures-8 and 10 reverting the petitioner from his promotional post have been passed without assigning any reasons and, thereby, suffers from non-compliance of principles of natural justice and should be quashed. It is further contended that reversion under the OCS (CCA) Rules, 1962 amounts to major penalty and if such reversion has to be made then due procedure as envisaged under 2 the said Rules has to be followed, but in the instant case the impugned orders of reversion, having been passed without following due procedure, cannot sustain in the eye of law.
5. Mr. M. Balabantaray, learned Standing Counsel for the State argued with vehemence that since promotions were given to the petitioner without following due procedure, thereby, the authority reverted the petitioner to the original post, consequentially, the orders so passed by the authority are well justified and cannot be interfered with at this stage.
6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after going through the records, this Court finds that the petitioner was initially appointed as Peon, vide order dated 20.02.1984, and he was attached to the college library vide order dated 28.03.1984 under Annexure-2. Subsequently, he was appointed as Library Assistant on 19.10.1990 in the scale of pay of Rs.950-20-1150-EB-25-1500/- per month vide Annexure-3. Thereafter, he was promoted to the post of UG Librarian in the scale of Rs.975-1160/- vide order dated 21.02.1997 under Annexure-4. Then, he was promoted to the post of Assistant Librarian in the scale of Rs.4750-125-7500/-, pursuant to the order passed in Annexure-7 dated 01.10.2008. But all on a sudden, vide Annexure-8 dated 06.03.2009, he was reverted from the post of Assistant Librarian to the post of UG Librarian and thereafter in Annexure-10 dated 18.03.2009 he was reverted from the post of UG Librarian to Library Assistant. A perusal of the orders impugned vide Annexures-8 and 10 would clearly indicate that no reason has been assigned therein with regard to reversion of the petitioner from the post of Assistant Librarian to UG Librarian and then from UG Librarian to Library Assistant. In absence of assigning any reasons, 3 the orders impugned under Annexures-8 and 10 are violative of principle of natural justice.
7. Reasons being a necessary concomitant to passing an order, the authority can thus discharge its duty in a meaningful manner by furnishing the same expressly.
In Union of India v. Mohan Lal Capoor, AIR 1974 SC 87, it has been held that reasons are the links between the materials on which certain conclusions are based and the actual conclusions. They disclose how the mind is applied to the subject-matter for a decision whether it is purely administrative or quasi-judicial and reveal a rational nexus between the facts considered and conclusions reached. The reasons assure an inbuilt support to the conclusion and decision reached. Recording of reasons is also an assurance that the authority concerned applied its mind to the facts on record. It is vital for the purpose of showing a person that he is receiving justice.
Similar view has also been taken in Uma Charan v. State of Madhya Pradesh, AIR 1981 SC 1915.
Similar view has also been taken by this Court in Patitapaban Pala v. Orissa Forest Development Corporation Ltd. & another, 2017 (I) OLR 5 and in Banambar Parida v. Orissa Forest Development Corporation Limited, 2017 (I) OLR 625.
8. Even otherwise also the impugned orders in Annexures-8 and 10 cannot sustain, in view of the fact that if a person is holding a promotional post and he is being reverted, that amounts to imposing major penalty as prescribed under the OCS (CCA) Rules, 1962 and for that the authority should follow due procedure as envisaged under the said Rules. But in the instant case the authorities, while passing impugned orders of reversion vide Annexures-8 and 10, have not 4 followed due procedure as envisaged under the Rules.
9. For all the above reasons, the impugned orders dated 06.03.2009 and dated 18.03.2009 in Annexure-8 and Annexure-10 respectively cannot sustain in the eye of law and the same are hereby quashed. The matter is remitted back to opposite party no.3- Principal, D.D. Autonomous College, Keonjhar for reconsideration of the same in accordance with law.
10. With the above observation and direction the writ petition stands disposed of.
Issue urgent certified copy as per rules.
(DR. B.R. SARANGI)
GDS JUDGE
5
6