Orissa High Court
Ramesh Chandra Parida vs State Of Orissa And Others ...... ... on 19 July, 2018
Equivalent citations: AIRONLINE 2018 ORI 231
Author: S.N.Prasad
Bench: S.N.Prasad
HIGH COURT OF ORISSA: CUTTACK.
W.P.(C) No.7512 of 2012
In the matter of an application under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution
of India.
---------
Ramesh Chandra Parida ...... Petitioner
- Versus-
State of Orissa and others ...... Opposite Parties
For Petitioner : M/s D.Routray,P.K.Sahoo, K.Mohanty, S.Das,
S.Jena, S.Rout.
For Opp.Parties : M/s Shashi Bhusan Jena, S.Behera,
A.Mishra, S.Soren
M/s Bhabani Sankar Das, A.K.Panigrahi ,
M.K.Biswal
M/s Udit Ranjan Jena, B.K.Dash, N.K.Mohanty
( for O.P.No.6)
M/s K.P.Mishra,S.Mohapatra,M.Das
( for O.P.No.5)
---------
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE SHREE JUSTICE S.N.PRASAD
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Date of hearing and judgment: 19.07.2018
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
S.N.Prasad,J. In this writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the
Constitution of India the order passed by the Joint Director(Schools), R.D.E.,
Bhubaneswar in Appeal Case No.151 of 2010 dated 30/31.3.2012 is under
challenge whereby and where under the appeal has been rejected without
interfering with the order of termination issued against the petitioner dated
27.2.2004.
2
2. Brief facts of the case of the petitioner is that he has been
appointed in the school which was in receipt of block grant as Hindi Teacher
on 14.12.1991 pursuant to the decision of the Managing Committee. The
petitioner discharged his duty regularly but show cause notice was issued by
the Managing Committee on the ground of long unauthorized absence from
12.4.1999 to 27.2.2004 and thereafter he was terminated from service vide
order no.21 dated 27.2.2004. The ground of challenging the order of
termination are:
(i) the same is after thought for the reason that even before
passing of the order of termination the Managing Committee has appointed
Hindi Teachers and only to accommodate such teacher/teachers the petitioner
has been terminated.
(ii) Without holding any enquiry or even any enquiry has been
conducted but second show cause notice has not been served upon him and
as such there is violation of principle of natural justice.
3. Opposite parties have appeared including the opposite party no.5
who has submitted that the petitioner was appointed as Hindi Teacher on
14.12.1991 but he has been discharging his duty sincerely but he became
absent from duty from 12.4.1999 to 27.2.2004 in spite of repeated notice
issued to him to resume duty failing which disciplinary action will be taken
but he has not responded to it. The Managing Committee/Governing Body
having no option, has decided to terminate the petitioner from service so that
teaching of Hindi subject may not be hampered and the students may not be
deprived from study of Hindi subject since in the institution in question there
is only one Hindi teacher and when the petitioner has remained absent fairly
for a period of about five years, in order to provide study in the Hindi subject,
appointment has been made.
So far as allegation that show cause notice has not been issued
or there is violation of principle of natural justice, it has been submitted by
them that in spite of repeated notice issued to the petitioner as has been
annexed in the counter affidavit, he has not responded to it and therefore the
3
Managing Committee having no option has constituted an enquiry which has
submitted report on 25.2.2004, the allegations against the delinquent
employee has been proved and the order of termination has been
passed, hence the order of termination may not be interfered with.
4. Heard learned counsel for the parties and after appreciating
their rival submissions, it is evident from the materials available on record
that the petitioner was appointed as Hindi Teacher on 14.12.1991 in the
institution in question which is in receipt of block grant. The petitioner has
discharged his duty but from 12.4.1999 to 27.2.2004 he remained absent
unauthorizedly. Show cause notice has been issued to the petitioner but not
being responded by him, hence after conducting enquiry he has been
terminated from service which is under challenge in this writ petition.
The ground of malice has been taken since it has been argued by
the learned counsel for the petitioner on the basis of the pleadings made in the
writ petition by way of ground that even before terminating the petitioner from
service Hindi Teachers have been appointed, same has been taken note of the
Joint Director in the impugned order but the same has not been considered.
So far this ground is concerned, this Court has come across the
said factual aspect and considering the submission made by the learned
counsel for the Managing Committee that if a person holding the post of Hindi
Teacher will be absent for a period of about 5 years the Managing Committee
cannot be deprived of from engaging temporary teachers to impart study in the
aforesaid subject in the said institution, keeping in view this fact into
consideration, appointments have been made but that does not mean the
Managing Committee have grudge to terminate the petitioner from service.
This Court, after considering the argument advanced by the
learned counsel for the opposite party no.5, has found substance in his
argument as because admittedly the institution in question is being run by
the Managing Committee duly been recognized by the prescribed authority
under the prevalent statute, hence in order to run the institution smoothly
Teachers have been appointed, one of the subject is Hindi in which the
4
petitioner was appointed on 14.12.1991 since the petitioner has remained
absent from 12.4.1999 to 27.2.2004, the date of order of termination. The
petitioner has admitted his guilt in remaining absent and begged apology
for the purpose.
Question is that the petitioner has got appointment to discharge
his duty as Teacher, it is expected from him to perform his duty with all
sincerity and honest so that study of the students in the school in Hindi
Subject that too there is only one Hindi Teacher. When the petitioner
remained absent for a long period of about 5 years and if the Managing
Committee has appointed any Hindi Teacher to meet out stop gap
arrangement, therefore action of the said Managing Committee is said to be
legal and justifiable in appointing Hindi Teacher to impart study in the said
subject.
In view thereof, the contention raised by the learned counsel for
the petitioner that before terminating the petitioner from service, Hindi
Teachers have been appointed cannot be said to sound ground to assail the
action of the Managing Committee in terminating the petitioner from service.
5. The other ground has been taken by the learned counsel for the
petitioner that principle of natural justice has been violated because copy of
the enquiry report or the second show cause notice has not been issued to
him, it is evident from the materials available on record, as has been averred
by the opposite party no.5, although the said document is in Odia language
the English translated version has been filed which is on record, from which it
is evident that show cause notice have been issued to the petitioner time and
again but when the petitioner was unauthorisedly absent, communication has
been made to him to resume his duty by giving him time and caution that in
case he will fail to join duty, disciplinary action will be taken but even then he
has not resumed his duty, hence having no option the Managing Committee
has issued show cause notice to the petitioner in which he has admitted his
guilt for remaining duty unauthorisedly and begged apology for that purpose.
5
It is settled that if guilt is being admitted by the delinquent there
is no need to even go for regular enquiry of the show cause, it is for the
reason that enquiry is needed if the fact is in dispute but when the
delinquent employee has pleaded his guilt, there is no question of conducting
any enquiry, hence the ground of violation of principle of natural justice is
having no force.
6. This Court, after coming across the materials available on
record, has taken into consideration that the petitioner has been appointed as
Hindi Teacher but remained absent for period of 5 years, hence the Managing
Committee has terminated him from service after issuing show cause notice
wherein allegation has been admitted by the petitioner in response to the show
cause notice. The Joint Director on its appellate jurisdiction, after taking into
consideration the entire aspect of the matter, the larger interest of the
students and also taking into consideration the fact that teacher has already
been appointed to impart study in Hindi subject who has put in 14 years of
service as has been submitted by the learned counsel for the opposite party
no.5, has rightly not interfered with the order of termination.
7. In view of the reasons assigned above, in my considered view, the
order dated 30/31.3.2012 passed by the Joint Director(Schools), R.D.E.,
Bhubaneswar under Annexure-9 needs no interference.
Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed.
.......................
S.N.Prasad,J.
Orissa High Court, Cuttack, Dated the 19th July,2018/Palai