Research › Search › Judgment

Orissa High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 810 (ORI)

Upendra Sahoo v. State of Odisha

2014-11-28

BISWANATH RATH

body2014
JUDGMENT BISWANATH RATH, J. - By filing this writ petition, the petitioner has sought for setting aside the judgment dated 07.06.2012 passed by the Presiding Officer, State Education Tribunal, Bhubaneswar in Appeal Case No.36 of 2010 as under Annexure-25 and the entire proceeding initiated against the petitioner including the orders dated 09.10.2005, 07.11.2005, 08.11.2005, letter dated 14.10.2005 under Annexures-3 to 6, order dated 11.08.2009 of the Director along with so called enquiry report dated 20.03.2009 under Annexure-17 and also the orders dated 02.06.2010, 11.08.2010 and 12.08.2010 vide Annexures-20, 22 and 23 respectively with a further prayer to direct the opposite parties to reinstate the petitioner in his former post and grant him all consequential service benefits including full back wages (salary components) from 09.10.2005. 2.Facts as borne from the writ petition are that the petitioner was appointed as a Lecturer in Oriya on being selected in due process of selection and by virtue of Resolution No.10 dated 14.02.1998 of the Governing Body of the Netrananda Sahoo Women’s College, Kakatpur, Purl followed by an appointment order in his favour vide Memo No.31 dated 26.02.1988. He had subsequently obtained the Ph.D decree. In the process, his services were approved by the Director and he was paid grant-in-aid in shape of Block Grant with effect from 01.01.2004. Since the petitioner was the senior most lecturer of the said College, he was .kept in-charge of Principal of the College and after the institution became an aided institution, being the senior most approved Lecturer, the petitioner was also approved as Principal-in-charge of the college by the Director following the Government Circular dated 19.07.1996 vide Director’s order dated 24.06.1994. While the matter stood thus, the Government in its general notification dated 10.6.2004 nominated the Additional District Magistrate. of the district as. President of the Governing. Body for the aided Colleges functioning in the district headquarters and the Sub-Collector as the President of the Governing Body of all other aided Colleges of the State functioning in their respective jurisdiction. The petitioner submitted that such nomination of the President is always subject to the approval by the prescribed authority along with the other Members for whom he was nominated as the President. As per the petitioner, the Sub-collector can only function as the President of the Governing Body after entire Members including. the President are approved but not singularly. The petitioner submitted that such nomination of the President is always subject to the approval by the prescribed authority along with the other Members for whom he was nominated as the President. As per the petitioner, the Sub-collector can only function as the President of the Governing Body after entire Members including. the President are approved but not singularly. Learned counsel for the petitioner in this writ petition submitted that above proposition has been settled by this Court in the case of Sri Sathya Sai Seva Organization and another v. State of Orissa and others, 2008 (II) OLR 432 . The petitioner further alleges that contrary to the settled position of law, the Sub-Collector, Puri with the help of local MLA, who was also a Cabinet Minister of the State Government, illegally styling and functioning as President of the Governing Body without any other members or without any approval of the statutory authority, in such capacity, as a matter of first step, he has illegally put the petitioner under suspension in his order no.258 dated 09.10.2005 and framed charges against the petitioner .by his office letter dated 14.10.2005 vide Annexures-4 to 6 without taking prior approval of the Director as required under Rule 21 of the Orissa Education (Recruitment & Conditions of Service of Teachers and Members of the Staff of Aided Educational Institutions) Rules, 1974 in short hereinafter called as ‘Rules 1974’. Being aggrieved by the said action of the Sub-Collector, the petitioner. moved the Education Tribunal, which case was ultimately dismissed as premature as well as on the ground of maintainability. The petitioner assailed the said order in this Court in W.P.(C) No.13976 of 2005, which matter was dismissed by order dated 15.12.2005 by up-holding the order of the Tribunal. Failing to get any approval from the Director, Sub-Collector as President of the Governing Body of the College put the petitioner under suspension in suppression of the earlier one vide Order No.299 dated 07.11.2005 for a further period of 30 days with effect from 08.11.2005, which order was approved by the Director on 08.11.2005. The petitioner alleged that since the order of suspension vide order dated 07.11.2005 was for a period of 30 days with effect from 08.11.2005, this order of suspension lost its force on expiry of 30 days on 07.12.2005. The petitioner alleged that since the order of suspension vide order dated 07.11.2005 was for a period of 30 days with effect from 08.11.2005, this order of suspension lost its force on expiry of 30 days on 07.12.2005. Consequently, the petitioner ought to have been reinstated in service with all service benefits with effect from 08.12.2005. While the matter stood thus, on a mischievous circumstance, designed, by the Sub-Collector, Puri, who was all through inimical towards the petitioner, entangled the petitioner. falsely in a criminal case and he was taken to custody. However, he was subsequently released on bail on the intervention of the High Court. The petitioner after returning from custody submitted a joining report to the Principal-in-Charge, who in turn refused accepting the petitioner’s joining report on the plea of no instruction by the Sub-Collector to accept his joining report. Thereafter, the petitioner was constrained to send a registered letter to the Sub-Collector, Puri requesting him to allow him to join back in the College. In response to such letter, the Sub-collector in his letter no.2442 dated 16.06.2006 intimated the petitioner that since he is continuing under the order of suspension, question of accepting the joining report does not arise. Being aggrieved by the said order of the Sub-collector, the petitioner filed appeal no 24 of 2006 in the State Education Tribunal. The appeal was dismissed holding as not maintainable on the ground that no appeal lies against the order of suspension. But by a subsequent development, the Tribunal directed the Governing Body to complete the disciplinary proceeding within a period of four months. The petitioner submitted that both the orders of suspension as well as initiation of disciplinary proceeding against the petitioner are without jurisdiction and authority, as not being passed by the Governing Body but by the Sub-Collector, Puri, functioning as the President of the Governing Body an action not on the basis of resolution being passed by the Governing Body. To substantiate his allegation, the petitioner submitted that the Governing Body is a body corporate consisting of 15 members and has to be reconstituted in accordance with law. To substantiate his allegation, the petitioner submitted that the Governing Body is a body corporate consisting of 15 members and has to be reconstituted in accordance with law. It is contended by the petitioner that the Sub-Collector being nominated to function only as the President of the Governing Body and in absence of any approved Member of the Governing Body, he could not have taken any decision or functioned on behalf of Governing Body as single member in want of quorum approval. The petitioner further claimed that the position of the Sub-collector under the circumstances to function as President has been made clear by the decision rendered by this Court in the case of Sri Sathya Sai Organization and another v. State of Orissa and others, 2008 (II) OLR 432 . 3. Being aggrieved by said action of the Sub-Collector, functioning as the President of the Governing Body, the petitioner filed W.P.(C) No.12276 of 2007 in this Court which was disposed of by order dated 24.07.2007 directing the Director to conclude the disciplinary proceeding against the petitioner within a period of four months with further direction to pay subsistence allowances to the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that under Rule-21 of 74 Rules if the Governing Body fails to take action against an employee, the Director can exercise power of disciplinary authority and conclude the proceeding and it is in this view the Director was rightly directed by the High Court to conclude the disciplinary proceeding. The petitioner further contended that Hon’ble High Court directing the Director to conclude the proceeding taking into account that there is no valid Governing body of the College at the relevant time. 4. Since the conclusion of the proceeding as directed by this Court was delayed with some reason or the other, the petitioner was compelled to file W.P.(C) No.18188 of 2008 which matter was disposed of by order dated 10.04.2009 with specific direction to the Director to conclude the proceeding within a period of four months with further direction for clearing the subsistence allowances. When the matter stood thus, even though there was a direction to the Director to conclude the disciplinary proceeding, the Director appointed Dr. Umakanta Sahoo, Dy. Director as Enquiry Officer. On being noticed, the petitioner appeared before him and raised objection in the appointment of the Dy. When the matter stood thus, even though there was a direction to the Director to conclude the disciplinary proceeding, the Director appointed Dr. Umakanta Sahoo, Dy. Director as Enquiry Officer. On being noticed, the petitioner appeared before him and raised objection in the appointment of the Dy. Director as Enquiry Officer along with his defence/objection to the charges. In spite of the petitioner’s request for supplying the documents and allowing him to exhibit documents and cross-examine witnesses and raising his objection on the appointment of Dy. Director as an Enquiry Officer so also the initiation of the• proceeding by an incompetent authority, the Director in a surprise manner concluded the departmental proceeding by his order dated 10.08.2009, but communicated vide communication dated 11.08.2009 with the following observation:- “Accordingly on considering the gravity of the allegations the charges framed for the same being grave and serious which is not expected on the part of an employee of the aided education institution holding a responsible post of Principal-in-Charge to act in such manner and detriment to the educational institution which involves the career and the future of the students, liberal action will not be justified to meet the ends of justice and to uphold the dignity and integrity of the institution. Considering all the aforesaid aspects, I am of the considered view that he should be imposed with any of the major penalties to meet the ends of justice so befitting to the charges established. However, I feel it appropriate to impose penalty under Rule -20 (b) of the Orissa Education Recruitment Rules, 1974 that the delinquent should not be entrusted with any administrative work examination work in future and the period of suspension shall be treated as such. The disciplinary proceeding concludes accordingly. Let this order be served on the delinquent along with a copy of the enquiry report dated 20.03.2009 of the Deputy Director (Sch.)-cum-Enquiring Officer.” 5. The order of recommendation of punishment by the Director, Higher Education on completion of the Disciplinary Proceeding to the disciplinary authority is appearing at Annexure-17 to the writ petition. The disciplinary proceeding concludes accordingly. Let this order be served on the delinquent along with a copy of the enquiry report dated 20.03.2009 of the Deputy Director (Sch.)-cum-Enquiring Officer.” 5. The order of recommendation of punishment by the Director, Higher Education on completion of the Disciplinary Proceeding to the disciplinary authority is appearing at Annexure-17 to the writ petition. The petitioner being aggrieved by the aforesaid order preferred a Revision Petition under Rule 26 of 1974 rules before the Director on 09.09.2009 and at the same time the petitioner also submitted a joining report before the college authorities without prejudice to his right to challenge the order dated 11.08.2009 passed by Director, Higher Education, Orissa, (This order was passed on 10.08.2009 but communicated on 11.08.2009), but to the ill luck of the petitioner, as prevailed at that point of time, the Sub-Collector instead of accepting the joining report of the petitioner by his letter No.8867 dated 16.05.2009 intimated the petitioner that he is under suspension and since there is no order from the Director, Higher Education, Orissa for accepting the joining report of the petitioner, he is unable to accept the same. 6. Being aggrieved, the petitioner moved this Court in W.P.(C) N0.10012 of 2010 seeking direction against the Director ensuring joining of the petitioner. The petitioner submitted that he moved the writ petition being prejudiced by the order of the Director, Higher Education as he was in distress condition and he has no financial assistance with him for a long period. This Court, however, disposed the aforesaid writ petition by order dated 03.06.2010 directing the implementation of the order of the Director dated 11.08.2009 provided that the order of the director is neither varied not appealed by any higher authority. The petitioner alleges that the direction of this Court was not carried out on some plea or other and contended that since the order of the Director was not challenged and varied by any higher authority, it was incumbent upon the Governing Body to work out the direction of the’ Director vide Annexure-I 7, when the matter stood thus, frustrated by the Director’s order vide Annexure-17 and the decision of this Court in W.P.(C) No.12276 of 2007 on a suspicious and clandestine manner petitioner was handed over an order dated 02.06.20 I 0 passed the Sub-Collector. Reading of this the petitioner was taken to surprise in as much as the Sub-collector passed a fresh order of punishment in removing the petitioner from service. The petitioner strongly contended•• that in view of conclusion of the disciplinary proceeding by the Director vide Annexure-17 following direction of this Court in W.P.(C) No.12276 of 2007 and recommendation of the Director, he ought to have been reinstated, instead, it is on the basis of the recommendation of the proposal of the Sub-Collector .and President of the Governing Body, the Director passed another order dated 08.02.2010 approving the removal of the petitioner from service on approval of the resolution dated 01.06.2010. Following the approval of the Director on the so- called Governing Body resolution dated 01.06.2010, the Sub-Collector-cum-President of the Governing Body of the College issued an order for removal against the petitioner vide Annexute-23. 7. As against the said order, petitioner preferred an appeal before the Education, Tribunal vide Appeal No.36 of 2010 which appeal was dismissed having devoid of any merit by the judgment of the Tribunal dated 07.06.2012 as appearing at Annexure-25. Hence the writ petition. 8. There was direction for service of extra copy following direction of this Court on counsel for the State. The matter was adjourned to several dates but, no counter is filed by the State counsel. The Governing Body even though appeared by way of caveate but, choose not to file any counter. The matter is decided on the basis of submission of the State counsel and the counsel for the so-called Governing Body. 9. Facts as borne from the writ petition is that the suspension order vide order dated 07.11.2005 was for a period of 30 days with effect from 08.11.2005. This order of suspension lost its force on expiry of 30 days on O7.2.2005. Petitioner was in the meanwhile falsely entangled in a criminal proceeding and on intervention of Courts he got bail. On being released, he submitted his joining report but the Principal-in-charge refused to accept him on the plea that there is no such instruction from the Sub-collector. On representation to the Sub-collector the Sub-collector vide his letter No.2442 dated 16.06.2006 intimated the, petitioner that since he is under suspension question accepting his joint report, does not arise. On being released, he submitted his joining report but the Principal-in-charge refused to accept him on the plea that there is no such instruction from the Sub-collector. On representation to the Sub-collector the Sub-collector vide his letter No.2442 dated 16.06.2006 intimated the, petitioner that since he is under suspension question accepting his joint report, does not arise. Fact remains the suspension order has already lost its force since 07.12.2005 therefore both the Sub-collector and the Principal-in-charge thus erred in not permitting the petitioner to continue in his post. Petitioner raised a question on the initiation of disciplinary proceeding by the Sub-collector in the capacity of President of Governing Body singly as there was no members of the, Governing Body being approved. Such’ a question was also under consideration of this Court vide 2008 (II) OLR 432 in Shri Sathya Sai Seva Orgaization and another v. State of Orissa and others in para-1 0 this Court held as follows:- xxxxxxxxx “10. A fascicle reading of all these provisions show that the Governing Body of a college shall continue in office for a term of three years from the date of its approval by the prescribed authority. However, it can be superseded before completion of its term of three years, if it is found that it has neglected or failed to perform any of the duties imposed on it. In either of the case, the prescribed authority may allow the Governing Body to continue in office till the new Governing Body is reconstituted or appoint any person or persons to exercise the powers and discharge the function of the Governing Body during the intervening .period, In the present case, there is no material to show as to why the Governing Body of petitioner No.3 College was dissolved. But Annexure-2, under which the Governing body of petitioner No.3 College was dissolved, has not been challenged in this writ petition. Petitioners are aggrieved only with the notification, Annexure-4, so far Opp. party No.3, College is concerned. This notification shows that Opp. party No.4 was nominated as the President of the Governing Body of Opp. party No.3 College. Once the Governing Body was dissolved, there exists no Governing Body for which a President can be nominated. Petitioners are aggrieved only with the notification, Annexure-4, so far Opp. party No.3, College is concerned. This notification shows that Opp. party No.4 was nominated as the President of the Governing Body of Opp. party No.3 College. Once the Governing Body was dissolved, there exists no Governing Body for which a President can be nominated. It appears that there was total non-application of mind by the Government, more particularly, opposite parties 1 and 2 to understand and follow the provision of law in the Rules, 1991. It is .so, because Rule 25 of the Rules, 1991, which is the relevant provision in sub-rule 1 prescribes that “xxx as soon as the college becomes an aided college, the Governing Body of the College shall be reconstituted in the following manner .....” (underlined to put emphasis). When the Governing Body was dissolved on 10.06.2004 and a new Governing Body was not in existence, the order of the State by nominating only a person as the President was Improper and uncalled for. Therefore, the act of nominating opposite party No.4 as the President under Annexure-4 is a half-done job and as such Annexure-4, so far Opp. party No.3, College is concerned cannot be sustained and accordingly we quash the same. Consequentially, until reconstitution of the Governing Body in accordance with Rule 25 of the Rules, 1991, management of the College be entrusted to a competent authority under that Rules and steps be taken for reconstituting the Governing Body. So far allegations’ and the counter allegations relating to mis-utilisation of funds by Opp. party No.4, non-auditing of the funds etc., are concerned, we refrain from going to those factual controversy. Nonetheless, it is the duty of the opp. parties 1 and 2 to see that for the entire un-audited period, there is proper audit by the Local Fund ‘Authorities and any person responsible for mismanagement or otherwise of the Government funds or the funds available from the U.G.C. may be dealt with suitably in accordance with the law. Such steps be taken expeditiously by the officer, who shall remain in charge of the College. In any case of Opposite party No.2 shall see to the proper implementation of the above direction.” 10. In the case referred to hereinabove, this Court categorically held nomination of a person only as President is improper and .uncalled for. Such steps be taken expeditiously by the officer, who shall remain in charge of the College. In any case of Opposite party No.2 shall see to the proper implementation of the above direction.” 10. In the case referred to hereinabove, this Court categorically held nomination of a person only as President is improper and .uncalled for. Consequently quashed the appointment of the person as the President of the Governing Body. In view of the above settled position of law since the appointment of the President is invalid all action taken up by such President also remains invalid. I find force in the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner. 11. Be that as it may, on challenging the action of the Sub-Collector this Court in disposing W.P.(C) No.12276 of 2007 by order dated 24.07.2008 passed the following order :- “4. 24.07.2008. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. The case of the petitioner, who was working as Lecturer in Oriya in Netrananda Sahoo Women’s College, Kakatpur, is that he is under suspension since 09.10.2005 but he has not been paid subsistence allowance. A prayer is also made to quash the charge sheet dated 14.10.2005 submitted against the petitioner on the ground that the O.Ps. are not concluding the disciplinary proceeding initiated against him despite the order dated 27.04.2007 passed by the Presiding Officer, State Education Tribunal in M.J.C. No.8/2007 arising out of Appeal No.24/2006. In the order dated 27.04.2007, the Tribunal directed the Governing Body to dispose of the disciplinary proceeding within a period of four months from the date of communication of the order. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the continuance of the disciplinary proceeding for an indefinite period tantamount to harassment and adding to that due to non-payment of subsistence allowance, the petitioner is virtually starving as he has no other means to meet both the ends. Looking at the nature of prayer of the petitioner and considering the submission as made above, we dispose of this writ petition with a direction to O.P.2-Director of Higher Education, Bhubaneswar to conclude the disciplinary proceeding initiated against the petitioner within a period of four months and pay the arrear subsistence allowance entitled to the petitioner within a period of two weeks from the date of communication of this order. Sd/-B.P. Das,J Sd/-R.N. Biswal.” 12. Sd/-B.P. Das,J Sd/-R.N. Biswal.” 12. From the above order of the High Court, it is crystal clear that this Court gave a clear direction to the opposite party no.2 therein, i.e., the Director, Higher Education, Bhubaneswar to conclude the disciplinary proceeding initiated against the petitioner within a period of four months with further direction to pay the arrear subsistence allowance entitled to the petitioner within a period of two months from the date of communication of the order. It is needless to submit here that Rule-21 of 74 Rules also makes it clear that if Governing Body is unable to conclude a proceeding the Director can exercise the power of Disciplinary authority hence and conclude the proceeding. In the present case in absence of a Governing Body the Director was directed to conclude the disciplinary proceeding. On conclusion of the Disciplinary proceeding at his end following Sub-rule-2(b) of Rule 21 on his recommendations the Government Body ought to have imposed any of the penalties specified in Rule 20 on the petitioner. At this stage, it is relevant to take note of Rule-20 and Rule 21 of the “The Orissa (Recruitment and conditions of Service of Teachers and Members of the Staff of Aided Educational Institution Rule 1974 which reads as hereunder:- “20. Nature of Penalties-(l) The following penalties may, for. good and sufficient reasons and as hereinafter provided be imposed on an employee of an Aided Educational Institution, namely: (a) fine; (b) censure; (c) withholding of increments or promotion; (d) recovery from pay of whole or part of any pecunary loss caused to the institution for negligence or breach of order; (e) suspension; (f) reduction to a lower service grade or post or to a lower scale of pay or to a lower stage in the scale of pay; (g) compulsory retirement; (h) removal from service which shall not be a disqualification for future employment; and (i) dismissal from service which shall ordinarily be a disqualification for further employment: Provided that the penalty of fine shall be imposed only on lower grade employees. (2) Termination of the services of a probation under Rule 16 or of a temporary employee in accordance with the terms of such agreement shall not amount to a penalty within the meaning of this Rule. 21. (2) Termination of the services of a probation under Rule 16 or of a temporary employee in accordance with the terms of such agreement shall not amount to a penalty within the meaning of this Rule. 21. Disciplinary authorities-(1) The Director may impose any of the penalties specified in Rule 20 on any employee: Provided that the Director shall not initiate any disciplinary proceeding unless the Managing Committee or the Governing Body, as the case may be, refuses or neglects to take disciplinary action against any employee. (2) Without prejudice to Sub-rule (1) but subject to the provisions of Sub-rules (3) and (4) any of the penalties specified in Rule 20 may be imposed- (a) in respect of a lower grade employee, by the Headmaster or the Principal, as the case may be; and (b) in respect of any other employee, by the Managing Committee or the Governing Body, as the case may be: 1 [provided that in case of suspension of employees failing under Clauses (a) and (b) the prior approval of the Inspector in respect of any employee serving in a School and of the Director in relation to any other employee is obtained:].” xxxxxxxxx 13. Following targeted of the disciplinary proceeding by this Court by its order dated 10.04.2009 in W.P:(C) No.18188 of 2008, the Director in conclusion of the proceeding by his order dated 11.08.2009 suggested as a matter of punishment for not entrusting on the petitioner with any administrative work/examination work in future and the period of suspension shall be treated as such with further direction for service of copy of the enquiry report along with copy of order of the Director on the petitioner. Following provisions contained in Sub-rule 2(b) of Rule 21 of the 1974 Rules the Director rightly recommended the punishment sought to be imposed on the petitioner to the Governing Body for its decision on the punishment. From the order of the Director as appearing at Annexure-17, it clearly appears that 7 out of 11 charges established against the petitioner. Allegations against the petitioner being found to be serious the Director justified in deciding for major penalty. From the order of the Director as appearing at Annexure-17, it clearly appears that 7 out of 11 charges established against the petitioner. Allegations against the petitioner being found to be serious the Director justified in deciding for major penalty. In view of detailed discussion therein, I do not find any scope to interfere in the same and for which, I confirm the order of the Director, vide Annexure-l7, petitioner as submitted in para 3.37 at this stage without prejudice to his challenge to the order dated 11.08.2009 submitted a joining report which was not accepted on the plea that there is no such direction from the Director in turn he brought this aspect to the notice of the Director by filing a petition on 30.09.2009. At the same time, petitioner also moved W.P.(C)• No.10012 of 2010 for necessary direction in the matter of his joining in the college which matter was disposed of by this Court by its order dated 03.06.2010 with the following direction:- “02. 03.06.2010. Heard. The petitioner was working as Lecturer in Oriya at Netrananda Sahoo Women’s College, Kakatpur in the district of Puri. On the basis of certain allegations, he was suspended from service and a Disciplinary proceeding was initiated against him. As no action was taken by the Governing Body to dispose of the said proceeding, it is submitted that the petitioner approached this Court earlier in W.P.(C) No.13976 of 2005. The said writ application was dismissed. The Director, Higher Education Orissa, Bhubaneswar proceeded with the Disciplinary proceeding. The Director after observing. all paraphernalia and giving liberty to the parties by his order dated 11.08.2009 disposed of the said disciplinary proceeding observing as follows: “However, I feel it appropriate to impose penalty under Rule 20(b) of the Orissa Education Recruitment Rules 1974 that the delinquent should not be entrusted with any administrative work, examination work in future and the period of suspension shall be treated as such. The disciplinary proceeding concludes accordingly.” After imposition of the aforesaid punishment, the petitioner submitted his joining report before the Sub-Collector, Puri, who is also the President of the Governing Body of the College. The Sub-Collector, Puri by order dated 15.09.2009 intimated the petitioner that as he is still under suspension and there is no order from the Director, Higher Education to accept his joining report, he cannot be permitted to join. The Sub-Collector, Puri by order dated 15.09.2009 intimated the petitioner that as he is still under suspension and there is no order from the Director, Higher Education to accept his joining report, he cannot be permitted to join. Being aggrieved the petitioner approached this Court. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the disciplinary proceeding ended in imposition of certain punishment one of them being the period of suspension shall be treated to be as such. No appeal has been filed against the aforesaid order passed by the Director and as such Sub-Collector committed an error in not permitting him to join in the institution. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State, we find that the Sub-Collector, Puri has not properly appreciated the scenario of facts. Admittedly pending disposal of the disciplinary proceeding, the petitioner was put under suspension. The Disciplinary Proceeding has come to an end and punishment has already been imposed. Thus, the order of suspension has merged with the final order passed by the Director, Higher Education in the proceeding. In fact the Director has held that the period of suspension is to be treated as such. In view of the aforesaid clear facts and provisions of law, we dispose of the writ application with a direction that if the order passed by the Director, Higher Education, Orissa dated 11.08.2009 under Annexure-3 has not been varied by the higher authority or no appeal has been filed as yet the same shall be implemented, if there is no other impediment. Urgent certified copy of this order be granted on proper application. Sd/-A.S.Naidu, (V.J.) Sd/-B.K. Nayak, (V.J.)” 14. This Court disposing W.P.(C) No.10012 of 2010 has categorically directed for implementation of direction of the Director dated 11.08.2009 with rider that if the matter has not been varied or appealed. This order of High Court put an end to the order of Director as admittedly this order of the Director was neither varied by Higher Authority nor Appealed before any Higher Authority. Petitioner submitted another joining report on 07.06.2010, which was not accepted and on the other hand the petitioner was directed to come to college after Summer Vacation. This order of High Court put an end to the order of Director as admittedly this order of the Director was neither varied by Higher Authority nor Appealed before any Higher Authority. Petitioner submitted another joining report on 07.06.2010, which was not accepted and on the other hand the petitioner was directed to come to college after Summer Vacation. While the matter stood thus instead of accepting the joining report of the petitioner the petitioner was handed over with an order dated 02.06.2010 passed by the Sub-collector in dismissing the petitioner from service. This order suffers on account of clear direction of this Court vide W.P.(C) No.10012 of 2010 and the Governing Body was bound by the direction contained in W.P.(C) No.10012 of 2010. Further the order dated 02.06.2010 appears to have been passed back dated and definitely in an attempt to over reach the direction of this Court passed in W.P.(C) NO.10012 of 2010. I also held the order dated 02.06.2010 passed by the Sub-collector as bad in eye of law as he was incompetent to pass such order in view of the decisions of this Court as reported in 2008 (II) OLR-432. Further the order dated 02.06.2010 is also bad in eye of law for having been passed on extraneous materials such as taking into account of communication from Superintendent of Police (Vigilance), which was neither within the scope of Disciplinary proceeding against the petitioner nor an opportunity of being heard ever given to the. petitioner after service of any such document on the petitioner. Consequently, while holding the order dated 02.06.2010 as bad in the eye of law, I also hold the approval order of the Director vide Office Order No.28344 dated 11.08.2010 in approving the recommendation of the Sub-collector’s punishment order dated 02.06.2010 as bad in the eye of law. Further since the order of Sub-collector dated 12.08.2010 as appearing at Annexure-23 being passed on above series of illegal action must suffer consequently held the same bad in law. Further since the order of Sub-collector dated 12.08.2010 as appearing at Annexure-23 being passed on above series of illegal action must suffer consequently held the same bad in law. So far as judgment dated 07.06.2012 passed in Appeal No.36/2010 appearing at Annexure-25 same also suffers on account of non-considerations of the case in its proper perspective, not taking into account the direction of this Court in W.P.(C) No. 10012 of 2010, which made the Director’s order dated 11.08.2009 final and for not considering the competency of the Sub-collector, who was appointed only as the President of the Governing Body and not competent to pass the order of punishment and action being opposed to the decision of this Court vide 2008 (11) OLR-432. Further, I am also holding the order dated 02.06.2010, 11.08.2010 and 12.08.2010 (vide Annexures-20, 22 and 23) as bad in the eye of law. 15. Under the facts narrated hereinabove, in view of findings given hereinabove and decisions referred to hereinabove, I set aside the orders vide Annexures-20, 22, 23 and 25 as are all bad in the eye of law. I further held that in view of order passed by. the Director dated 11.08.2009 (Annexure-17), not being challenged by any concern thereafter, I confirm the same. Under the direction of this Court vide order dated 24.07.2008 passed in W.P.(C) No. 12276 of 2007, the challenge to the orders vide Annexures-3 to 6 remained innocuous, thus need no interference at this stage. In the circumstances, the petitioner shall be deemed to be continuing in service all throughout, but subject to the punishment awarded under Annexure-I 7. For wrongfully preventing the petitioner from discharging his duties, he is also entitled to all his service benefits which may be calculated within a period of one month from the date of communication of the judgment and paid to the petitioner with interest @ 8% per annum for the period of entitlement till the date’ of payment and be paid within six weeks from the date of communication of the judgment of this Court. 16.The writ petition succeeds to the extent directed hereinabove. 16.The writ petition succeeds to the extent directed hereinabove. In view of harassment to the petitioner and forcing him to run to different Courts, I also award cost of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees five thousand), which cost shall be paid by the Governing Body to the petitioner within six weeks from the date of communication of the judgment of this Court. Ordered accordingly.