Research › Search › Judgment

Orissa High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 290 (ORI)

Geetanjali Devi v. State of Orissa

2012-07-09

S.K.MISHRA, V.GOPALA GOWDA

body2012
ORDER 9.7.2012 - Heard Mr. Mohanty, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. R.K. Mohapatra, learned Government Advocate for the State. 2. The appellant has filed this writ appeal challenging the order dated 15.7.2011 passed in W.P.(C) No. 8936 and 9421 of 2010 confirming the order dated 4.5.2010 passed by the appellate authority, i.e., Collector, who has upheld the order dated 6.1.2010 passed by the Sub-Collector, urging various legal contentions. 3. After perusal of the order of the appellate authority impugned in the writ petition; confirmed by the learned Single Judge, against which the present appeal has been preferred, having satisfied that reasonable opportunity was not given either by the Sub-Collector or the Collector and the same being one of the grounds taken by the appellant in, the memorandum of appeal, at the stage of admission, on our direction, the record in relation to the case in hand pertaining to disengagement of the appellant, has been secured. 4. Perusal of the impugned order with reference to the grounds urged in the memorandum of appeal, it reveals that the Collector extracting the observations made by the Sub-Collector in his order dated 6.1.2010 with regard to the certain allegations which constitute an act of misconduct, uphold the order of disengagement passed by the Sub-Collector without affording a fair and reasonable opportunity of hearing to the appellant. The Sub-Collector has observed that due opportunity was given to the appellant to file any documentary evidence in support of the charges levelled against her and as she neither filed any documentary evidence nor explained anything on the charges levelled against her, it is construed that the charges levelled against her are proved which finding and reason assigned by the Sub-Collector is accepted by the Collector without applying his mind to the facts of the case. That apart the undisputed fact is that while passing the order of disengagement, principle of natural justice has not been complied with. 5. Having regard to the nature of allegations made against the appellant who is an Anganwadi Worker, merely because she did not file any documentary evidence denying the allegations made against her, cannot be construed that the charges are proved. Therefore, the approach of the Sub-Collector in passing the order of disengagement against the appellant without conducting a valid enquiry in compliance with the principles of natural justice, is bad in law. Therefore, the approach of the Sub-Collector in passing the order of disengagement against the appellant without conducting a valid enquiry in compliance with the principles of natural justice, is bad in law. This important aspect of the matter has not been considered by the appellate authority who has got jurisdiction to appreciate the facts and the legal contentions. The learned Single Judge has also failed to appreciate this aspect of the matter though the observations made by the Sub-Collector and the Collector have been elaborately referred in connection with the disengagement of the appellant. 6. Therefore, the order of tile learned Single Judge is liable to be set aside and the same is accordingly set aside. The writ appeal is allowed. Consequently the order dated 4.5.2010 passed by the Collector and also the order dated 6.1.2010 passed by the Sub-Collector are set aside. The matter is remitted to the Sub-Collector, the original authority to consider the matter afresh giving an opportunity of hearing to the appellant and pass an order in accordance with law. It is open for the Sub-Collector to either keep the appellant under suspension or direct her to continue in her employment. Writ appeal allowed.