BISWANATH SETHI Vs. STATE OF ODISHA AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner, who was working as an Assistant Teacher (Level-V, Elementary Cadre) in Aptira UGME School, has filed this writ petition challenging the office order dated 16.12.2019 under Annexure-12terminating his service with immediate effect under Rule-15 of OCS (CCA) Rules, 1962 on the ground of submission of fake C.T. pass certificate

(2.) The factual matrix of the case, in hand, is that after completion of H.S.C. examination conducted by the Board of Secondary Education, the petitioner took admission in Secondary Teachers Training School, Agarpada for prosecuting C.T. course in the year 1999. In July, 2001, he appeared in all the subjects but could not clear some papers. In 2002, the petitioner again appeared and cleared all but eight papers. In October, 2003, the petitioner appeared in those eight papers and having not come out successful, he appeared in the compartmental examination and cleared all the papers. After clearing the Secondary Teachers' Training Certificate examination, Board of Secondary Education, Odisha issued necessary certificate in favour of the petitioner on 30.12.2003. The Secretary, Board of Secondary Education, Odisha vide letter no.3142 (4781) dated 17.09.2004 sent the provisional certificate-cum-memorandum of marks of the petitioner to the Headmaster, S.T. School, Agarpada, Bhadrak. Though there were some wrong recording of marks by the Board of Secondary Education, Odisha, after scrutiny, Board of Secondary Education, Odisha issued revised mark sheet in favour of the petitioner.

(3.) Mr. Bimbisar Dash, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that while imposing harsh penalty of termination of service, the procedure as envisaged under OCS (CCA) Rules, 1962 has not been complied with nor the petitioner has been given opportunity of hearing while passing the order of punishment and, more so, no inquiry has been conducted on the allegations, thereby, the order so passed in Annexure-12 dated 16.12.2019 terminating the services of the petitioner cannot sustain in the eye of law.