Bhaskar Chandra Majhi vs State Of Odisha And Others

The challenge in the present appeal is to the judgment dated 8th August, 2022 passed by the learned Single Judge allowing W.P.(C) No.20396 of 2018 filed by Respondent No.5 whereby he had questioned an order dated 10th September, 2018 passed by the President of the Utkalmani Gopabandhu Higher Secondary School at Ukhunda, Keonjhar where he was working as Lecturer-in-Odia, placing him under suspension pending disciplinary proceedings.

The Respondent No.5 had also challenged the subsequent order dated 13th November, 2018 of the Directorate of Higher Secondary Education, Odisha approving the above decision to place him under suspension.

This Court has heard the submissions of Mr. U. K. Samal, learned counsel appearing for the Appellant.

The learned Single Judge has in the impugned order noted that even in the writ petition which had been pending for almost four years, none of the Opposite Parties including the present Appellant filed counter affidavit despite repeated opportunities.

A perusal of the order-sheet in the writ petition reveals that on 13th December 2018, notice was issued and on 10th January, 2019 time had been sought to file counter affidavit. There was therefore sufficient time much before the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic for the present Appellant to have filed its reply to the writ petition. Therefore, the excuse that there was a COVID-19 pandemic and therefore counter affidavit could not be filed is unacceptable.

Learned Single Judge has further noted that despite the Respondent No.5 having been placed under suspension since 12th September 2018, the disciplinary proceedings had not even been initiated. No explanation was forthcoming for the delay. In the circumstances, the learned Single Judge has while quashing the suspension order directed reinstatement of Respondent No.5.

Having heard Mr. Samal, learned counsel for the Appellant, the Court is not persuaded that any error has been committed by the learned Single Judge in the facts and circumstances of the case. There is in fact no valid explanation for neither initiating the disciplinary proceedings for over four years nor even filing a reply to the writ petition for over three years.

Mr. Samal then submits that although Respondent No.5 has been reinstated as Lecturer, he is raising a claim to be appointed as Principal In-charge. That is a separate cause of action which has no bearing as far as the present case is concerned.

For the aforementioned reasons, the Court finds no grounds have been made out to interfere with the impugned judgment of the learned Single Judge.

The writ appeal is accordingly dismissed.

…………………………..