Orissa High Court
Satya Narayan Mishra vs State Of Odisha And Others ..... ... on 4 August, 2021
Author: B.R. Sarangi
Bench: B.R. Sarangi
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
W.P.(C) No.22454 of 2021
Satya Narayan Mishra ..... Petitioners
Mr. G.R. Sethi, Advocate
Vs.
State of Odisha and others ..... Opposite parties
Mr. D.K. Mohanty, ASC
CORAM:
DR. JUSTICE B.R. SARANGI
ORDER
04.08.2021 Order No. This matter is taken up through hybrid mode.
01The petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking to quash the order dated 29.07.2021 under Annexure-4, so far it relates to the petitioner, by which he has been repatriated from Dhenkanal district to Malkangiri district, which is his parent district of employment.
Mr. G.R. Sethi, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that by virtue of the policy introduced by the Government in Annexure-2, the Police Circular Order No.342 of 2013, with regard to transfer (on deputation) of civil constables, the petitioner was deputed from Malkangiri to Dhenkanal district, where he has also exercised his option for change of cadre in Annexure-3 dated 12.08.2013, which is still pending for consideration. When such matter is pending for consideration, without giving opportunity to the petitioner, the order impugned in Annexure-4 dated 29.07.2021 has been passed repatriating the petitioner to Malkangiri district, which is his parent district. Thereby, the action of the authority cannot sustain in the eye of law.
Mr. D.K. Mohanty, learned Addl. Standing Counsel contended that admittedly the petitioner belonged to Malkangiri district, which is his parent cadre where he was joined in service on 18.02.1997, and on the basis of policy introduced by the Government in Annexure-2, the Police Circular Order No.342 of 2013, with regard to transfer (on deputation) of civil constables, the petitioner has been transferred from Malkangiri district to 2 Dhenkanal district and joined on 10.10.2008. While he was continuing in service, though the petitioner exercised his option in Annexure-3, the same was not accepted due to dearth of police constables in each of the district, and as such, to rationalize the same, the persons those who have been deputed, Government, as a matter of principle, decided that they have to go to their parent district. Accordingly, Annexure-4 has been passed directing the petitioner to go back to his parent district, i.e., Mallangiri. It is further contended that not only petitioner alone, other similarly situated persons those who were deputed to other district, they are also repatriated to their original district. Thereby, no illegality or irregularity has been committed by the authority in passing the order impugned.
Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after going through the records, it appears that the petitioner, who was appointed in parent district, i.e., Malkangiri, on the basis of Police Circular Order No.342 of 2013, has been transferred on deputation to Dhenkanal district, where he was continued and also exercised his option to be absorbed in Dhenkanal district. But no steps have been taken by the authority with regard to option exercised by the petitioner. Since there is dearth of police personnel in different district, decision has been taken by the Government that the persons those who were deputed to other districts, should be repatriated to their parent district. Consequentially, Annexure-4 dated 29.07.2021 has been passed by the authority directing the petitioner to join in his parent district, i.e., Malkangiri by cancelling his deputation to Dhenkanal district. Thereby, no illegality or irregularity has been committed by the authority in passing the order impugned in Annexure-4 dated 29.07.2021, which requires interference by this Court.
At this stage, Mr. G.R. Sethi, learned counsel for the petitioner states that the petitioner may be permitted to withdraw the writ petition with liberty to file a fresh representation before the authority highlighting his grievances and direction may be given to consider and dispose of the same within a stipulated time.
In the above view of the matter, this writ petition stands 3 disposed of as withdrawn granting liberty to the petitioner to file a fresh comprehensive representation before the opposite party- authority within seven days hence highlighting his grievances, as has been raised in the present writ petition. If such application is filed, the same shall be considered and decided by the said authority by passing a reasoned and speaking order, as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of three months from the date of receipt of such representation along with the authenticated/certified copy of this order.
As the restrictions due to resurgence of COVID-19 situation are continuing, learned counsel for the parties may utilize a print out of the order available in the High Court's website, at par with certified copy, subject to attestation by the concerned advocate, in the manner prescribed, vide Court's Notice No.4587 dated 25th March, 2020, as modified by Court's notice no. 4798 dated 15th April, 2021.
Ashok (DR. B.R. SARANGI,J.)