GEET ROSALYN Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By way of this petition the Petitioner has sought for the following relief:

(2.) Short and undisputed background involved in the case is that pursuant to an advertisement vide Annexure-1 issued by the Opposite Party No.2 for filling up of the posts of teacher in High Schools, the Petitioner applied against the T.G.(C.B.Z) post and appears to have been selected against such post. Consequent upon her selection the Petitioner was posted in the P.N. High School, Dolasahi vide Annexure-2. While the Petitioner was continuing as such, on 3.01.2013 the State Government created 609 nos. of T.G. post for regularization of contractual teachers like that of the Petitioner. It appears, at the relevant point of time list of contractual teachers was also prepared and in the said list the name of the Petitioner finds place at Sl.No.8 (Annexure-4). It further appears, while the Petitioner's case was to be considered for regularization, due to the Petitioner remaining three days unauthorized absent on 17.11.2012 the Petitioner was issued with show cause notice vide Annexure-5. Pursuant to such notice dated 17.11.2012, on 19.12.2012 the Petitioner submitted her response explaining the reason of absent for three days. It is alleged that in absence of any inquiry the Petitioner was issued with a notice to respond on the proposed punishment for disengagement vide Annexure-8. Pleadings further disclose that on 25.02.2013 the Petitioner submitted the reason of unauthorized absence. Basing on the response filed by the Petitioner, the Opposite Party No.3 on 28.02.2013 passed an order of disengagement of the Petitioner. Challenging the order of disengagement vide Annexure-9 the Petitioner instituted an original application before the State Administrative Tribunal, Cuttack Bench vide O.A. No.1062 (C) of 2013. The above original application was finally disposed of on contest of the parties, where the State Administrative Tribunal came to observe that the punishment of termination /disengagement on account of three days of unauthorized absence is highly disproportionate and on this observation alone the Tribunal remanded the matter to the authority for reconsideration of such issue. It is needless to observe here that this order of the Tribunal has not been challenged by any of the parties and undisputedly the Tribunal disapproved the order of disengagement. It, therefore, appears, both the parties have accepted the said order and for the observation made the Tribunal, it was necessary on the part of the authority to consider the case of the Petitioner on any punishment other than disengagement. But however, on reconsideration of the case of the Petitioner depending on the direction of the State Administrative Tribunal in disposal of the O.A. No.1062(C) of 2013, the Opposite Party No.3 by its order dated 31.12.2015 vide Annexure-11 reiterated its earlier order of disengagement. The Petitioner here claimed that this order was not, however, communicated to her for long time. In the meantime the Petitioner undertook the exercise of contempt vide C.P. No.163 (c) of 2016. It appears, in the contempt proceeding the contemnors filed their response thereby enclosing the order of rejection dated 31.12.2015 vide Annexure-11. It is after coming to know about the order of rejection through the contempt proceeding and its reiteration of the disengagement order, it appears, the Petitioner again approached the State Administrative Tribunal by filing another original application bearing O.A. No.856 (C) of 2017. This original application being taken for admission and interim order, even though notice involving the above original application was issued on 30.03.2017, however, the Tribunal refused to grant interim protection to the Petitioner involving the order of rejection vide Annexure-11. Being aggrieved with the no interim protection by the State Administrative Tribunal, the Petitioner approached a Division Bench of this Court by way of W.P.(C) No.8888 of 2017; which matter appears to have been disposed of with an order of reinstatement of the Petitioner vide Annexure-12. Basing on the direction of the High Court in the aforesaid writ petition, the order dated 21.10.2017 vide Annexure-13 was issued giving a fresh appointment to the Petitioner. For the order at Annexure-13 remaining contrary to the direction of the Division Bench of the High Court, the Petitioner was constrained to file O.A. No.2(C) of 2018 before the Odisha Administrative Tribunal, Cuttack Bench. In this original application notice was issued on 18.01.2018, but for the closure of the Tribunal, pursuant to a direction of this Court in W.P.(C) No.28853 of 2019, the above original application got transferred to this Court for disposal and the same is, accordingly, registered as WPC(OAC) No.2 of 2018. During pendency of the above proceeding in the Tribunal it appears, the Opposite Party No.3 had already filed counter affidavit, but a rejoinder affidavit appears to have been filed after transfer of the matter to this Court.

(3.) Mr. Mohanty, learned counsel for the Petitioner taking this Court to the above developments, contended that at the first instance for the observation of the Tribunal, it was a clear direction to the Opposite Party no.3 to consider the case of the Petitioner on any other punishment other than the order of disengagement for there is merely three days unauthorized absence by the Petitioner. Mr. Mohanty, learned counsel for Petitioner, therefore, submitted that the Opposite Party No.3 went wrong in passing the order vide Annexure-11, thereby once again reiterating its earlier order of disengagement and therefore, Mr. Mohanty, learned counsel for Petitioner claimed that the order vide Annexure-11 remains contrary to the direction of the Tribunal in disposal of the O.A. No.1062(C) of 2013. Mr. Mohanty, learned counsel for Petitioner further contended that in the second round of litigation vide O.A. No.856(C) of 2017 for the Tribunal declining to grant interim protection the Petitioner was constrained to approach the Division Bench of this Court in W.P.(C) No.8888 of 2017, which writ petition was finally disposed of giving a clear direction for reinstatement of the Petitioner, thereby leaving nothing to be adjudicated in the pending original application; which ought to have been treated to be infructuous. Mr. Mohanty, learned counsel thus alleged that for the direction of the Division Bench for reinstatement of the Petitioner and in absence of any challenge to the judgment/order of the Division Bench by the competent authority, the only option available with the Opposite Parties was to reinstate the Petitioner into service from the date she was disengaged also with all consequential service benefits. Further taking this Court to the impugned order vide Annexure-13, Mr. Mohanty, learned counsel for the Petitioner alleged that the Opposite Party No.3 had no right to give fresh engagement to the Petitioner in the guise of compliance of the order of the Division Bench and for passing of such order they are already in contempt. It is, in this view of the matter and giving due regard to the direction of the Division Bench indicated hereinabove coupled with the earlier order of the Tribunal, Mr. Mohanty, learned counsel for Petitioner requested this Court for allowing the writ petition.