Research › Search › Judgment

Orissa High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 369 (ORI)

Nilamani Jal v. Collector, Bolangir

2016-05-10

S.N.PRASAD

body2016
ORDER : S.N. Prasad, J. 1. This writ petition is against the order dated 16.11.2015 passed by the Collector, Bolangir whereby and whereunder, the petitioner has been disengaged from the post of Multi Purpose Assistant (GRS) for negligence in Government duty with immediate effect. The case of the petitioner in brief is that he having been engaged as GRS of Matiabhata G.P. in the district of Bolangir vide Order No. 2127 dated 17.12.2007 and has started discharging his duties. His service has been renewed from time to time seeing his performances. He has been served with a show-cause notice 16.9.2015 as to why disciplinary action be not taken against him for the lapses to expedite MGNREGS works and to achieve the projected person days of labour budget 2015-16. 2. The petitioner has submitted his explanation, but without considering the reply, in one line the authority has passed the order of disengagement on 16.11.2015 which is purely a non-speaking, non-reasonable and without considering the reply. 3. Mr. Panda, learned Additional Government Advocate has appeared on behalf of the opposite parties-State and have filed counter affidavit through the Block Development Officer, Khaprakhol district of Bolangir wherein it has been stated that the petitioner has been issued with show-cause notices with regard to the irregularities having been committed by him for execution of MGNREGS work, the reply submitted by the petitioner is not found to be satisfied, hence, disengagement. Apart from that, other various allegations have been leveled against him. 4. I have heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused the documents available on record. 5. The fact which is not in dispute is that the petitioner has been appointed as GRS in the year 2007 and started discharging his duty, his service have been extended from time to time. The petitioner has been served with three show cause notices asking him to give reply about the irregularities committed by him in course of execution of MGNREGS work and not fulfilling the target. The petitioner has given reply, but according to the opposite parties-State, the reply is not found to be satisfactory, hence, the Collector, Bolangir has passed the order the order of disengagement on 16.11.2015 which is being referred herein below: "PANCHAYAT SAMITI OFFICE, KHAPRAKHOL No. 2409 Date: 16.11.2015. The petitioner has given reply, but according to the opposite parties-State, the reply is not found to be satisfactory, hence, the Collector, Bolangir has passed the order the order of disengagement on 16.11.2015 which is being referred herein below: "PANCHAYAT SAMITI OFFICE, KHAPRAKHOL No. 2409 Date: 16.11.2015. CAMP ORDER To Sri Nilamani Jal, Multi Purpose Assistant (GRS), Matiabhata GP is hereby disengaged from the post of Multi Purpose Assistant (GRS) for negligence in Govt. duty with immediate effect. Sd/- Collector, Bolangir. 6. It is evident that in one line, the petitioner has been disengaged. Now, there is no dispute about the settled proposition that even the administrative authority is supposed to pass a reasoned order. Although show-cause notice has been issued and the petitioner has given his reply, but merely issuance of show-cause is not sufficient to say that the principle of natural Justice has been followed, rather, when an employee in whose against show-cause notice is being issued and submit reply, it is the duty of the authority to consider that and thereafter to take decision. Consideration means active consideration as has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court rendered in the case of Chairman, LIC of India & Ors. v. A. Masilamani reported in (2013) 6 SCC 530 and for better appreciation paragraph-19 of the said judgment is quoted herein below: "19. The word "consider", is of great significance. Its dictionary meaning of the same is, "to think over", "to regard as", or "deem to be". Hence, there is a clear connotation, to the effect that, there must be active application of mind. In other words, the term "consider" postulates consideration of all relevant aspects of a matter. Thus, formation of opinion by the statutory authority, should reflect intense application of mind with reference to the material on record. The order of the authority, should reveal such application of mind. The appellate authority cannot simply adopt the language employed by the disciplinary authority, and proceed to affirm its order. 7. Thus, formation of opinion by the statutory authority, should reflect intense application of mind with reference to the material on record. The order of the authority, should reveal such application of mind. The appellate authority cannot simply adopt the language employed by the disciplinary authority, and proceed to affirm its order. 7. In this regard, reference may be made to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court rendered in the case of Smt. Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India and another, reported in AIR 1978 S.C. 597 wherein it has been held at 61 as follows: "This view was reiterated and re-affirmed in a subsequent decision of this Court in D.F.O. South Kheri v. Ram Sanehi Singh (1971) 3 SCC 864 : ( AIR 1973 SC 205 ). The law must, therefore, now be taken to be well settled that even in an administrative proceeding, which involves civil consequences, the doctrine of natural justice must be held to be applicable." 8. In the case of Biecco Lawrie Limited and another v. State of West Bengal and another, reported in (2009) 10 SCC 32 at para-18 it has been held as follows: "Principle of natural justice is attracted whenever a person suffers a civil consequence or a prejudice is caused to him by an administrative action. In other words principle of natural justice is attracted where there is some right which is likely to be affected by any act of the administration including a legitimate explanation. (See : Ashoka Smokeless Coal India (P) Ltd. v. Union of India and Ors., (2007) 2 SCC 640 . The procedure to be followed is not a matter of secondary importance and in the broadest sense natural justice simply indicates the sense of what is right and wrong (Voinet v. Barrett (1985) 55 LJB 39) and even in its technical sense it is now often equated with fairness. As a well-defined concept, it comprises of two fundamental rules of fair procedure that a man may not be a judge in his own cause (nemo judex in re sua) and that a man's defence must always be fairly heard. 9. It is also settled that without any reason, order cannot be said to be an order in the eye of law and it is also in violation of principle of natural justice. 9. It is also settled that without any reason, order cannot be said to be an order in the eye of law and it is also in violation of principle of natural justice. On the basis of this, the settled principle of law, the order dated 16.11.2015 passed by the Collector, Bolangir cannot be held to be sustainable and accordingly, the same is quashed. 10. In the result, the matter is remitted before the Collector, Bolangir to pass a fresh order after issuing proper show-cause reflecting the imputations of charges against the petitioner and pass order afresh after providing opportunity of being heard to him preferably within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of such reply. With this observation and direction, the writ petition stands disposed of.