DIBYA SUMIRA XAXA Vs. STATE OF ODISHA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner, Assistant Revenue Inspector posted at Tahasil Office, Kutra, lays challenge before the Odisha Administrative Tribunal, Cuttack Bench, Cuttack under Sec. 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, with a prayer to quash the order of the Opposite Party No.2-Collector, Sundargarh in terminating her service vide Memorandum No.1722 dtd. 2/6/2015 (Annexure-5). A prayer is also sought for reinstatement of the petitioner.

(2.) Shorn off unnecessary detail narration of facts, suffice it for the purpose of present case to describe that the petitioner-Dibya Sumira Xaxa @ Dibya Sumitra Xaxa in response to Advertisement No.1796/Estt., dtd. 11/7/2013 (Annexure-1) applied for the Post of 'ASSISTANT REVENUE INSPECTOR' against vacancy reserved for Scheduled Tribe (Woman) claiming herself to be sports person in the district of Sundargarh in the pay scale of Rs.5,200.00 - Rs.20,200.00 with Grade Pay of Rs.1,900.00.

(3.) During the course of hearing, Sri Devashis Panda, learned counsel submitted that even though written statement of defence was not furnished to the authority, the proceeding should have been continued by confronting the document(s)/report obtained behind the back of the petitioner and undertaken by affording opportunity to cross-examine the witness(es). As the petitioner at the relevant point of time was pursuing her remedy before this Court against imminent danger of being arrested, there was sufficient and reasonable cause available for not submitting the explanation/written statement of defence in response to theMEMORANDUM containing ARTICLE OF CHARGES vis-'-vis STATEMENT OF IMPUTATION IN SUPPORT OF CHARGES. Therefore, there was flagrant violation in adherence of principles of natural justice. It has been vehemently contended by Sri Panda that once the petitioner was considered for appointment in the post of 'ASSISTANT REVENUE INSPECTOR' on the basis of documents furnished, there was no scope for the Authority later on to insist upon production of document like 'Identity Card' issued by the Director of Sports, which is an alternative document in terms of item (xii) of Clause 5 of the Advertisement dtd. 11/7/2013. He further submitted that the appeal as filed by the petitioner has not yet been considered. As nothing fruitful came out by preferring appeal, the same does require to be treated as 'deemed to have been disposed of' and the writ petition is to be considered on its merits. Hence, this case deserves indulgence and accordingly, the order of termination is liable to be set aside.