SOUMITRI PANDA Vs. STATE OF ORISSA AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner who is working as the Manager (HRM) under Nilachal Ispat Nigam Limited, Industrial Estate, Kalinga Nagar Industrial Complex, Duburi, Jajpur has filed this application seeking to quash the order passed by opposite party No. 2 communicated to him by opposite party No. 3 on 26.02.2014 vide Annexure -3 directing to explain as to why appropriate action as deemed fit will not be taken against him for non submission of valid proof of his qualification.

(2.) THE factual matrix of the case is that Nilachal Ispat Nigam Limited (in short hereinafter referred to as NINL) is a Public Limited Company which was promoted by MNTC, a Central Government undertaking having majority share and the State Government the 2nd largest share, like other Government agencies such as Industrial Promotion and Investment Corporation of Orissa Ltd. (in short, IPICOL). The petitioner after his graduation in Commerce from Utkal University has completed his MBA Course from the Institute of Business Administration and Management, New Delhi under Distance Course. Besides, he had completed one year Diploma in Computer Application and Data Processing. The petitioner coming to know that opposite party No. 2 -Company has started operating in the State of Orissa, accordingly he made an application for consideration of his case to give him suitable appointment to any post. His application was considered by opposite party No. 2 and the petitioner was called upon to appear in the interview and having qualified he was engaged as a Trainee Executive. Thereafter, he was appointed as Junior Executive and accordingly he joined in the said post on 04.11.1997. His service was confirmed against the said post on completion of probation period vide order dated 03.01.2001. He was promoted to the post of Junior Manager (HRD) on 20.07.2002 on probation for a period of six months and thereafter he was regularized in the post of Junior Manager (HRD) vide order dated 03.04.2003. Again he was promoted to the post of Assistant Manager (Personnel) on 09.12.2004 on probation and was confirmed in the said post and was promoted to the post of Deputy Manager and thereafter to the post of Manager vide order dated 03.10.2011. The petitioner had acquired MBA qualification from an institution which had not been approved by AICTE, but subsequently the said institution had obtained AICTE approval. While he was so continuing in his promotional post, he was communicated vide Annexure -3, the letter dated 26.02.2014 wherein it was specifically stated that while issuing appointment letter on 18.10.1996 the petitioner was categorically informed that MBA Degree submitted in support of his qualification requires confirmation of recognition by AICTE and he was given one month's time to submit the necessary documents in support of AICTE recognition of his qualification. Though his service was confirmed and subsequently he was promoted to the higher levels from time to time, he had failed to give documentary evidence in support of recognition of his MBA Degree by AICTE. Therefore, the High Power Committee was constituted to investigate into the alleged irregularities in recruitment of some employees including the petitioner. The qualification of MBA acquired by the petitioner having not been recognized by AICTE, he has been called upon to show cause as to why appropriate action as deemed fit will not be taken against him for non -submission of valid proof of his qualification. Hence, this writ petition.

(3.) PER contra, Mr. K.R. Mohapatra, learned counsel for opposite party No. 3 strenuously urged that it was specifically stated in his offer of appointment that MBA Degree qualification required confirmation of recognition by AICTE and he was given one month time to submit necessary documents in support of recognition of his MBA Degree by AICTE. Subject to submission of the aforesaid document his service was to be confirmed on 24.11.1997. The petitioner having not provided the confirmation of recognition by AICTE with regard to the institution from which he has been granted MBA Degree, the petitioner was called upon to explain as to why suitable step shall not been taken against him for the said reason. Therefore, the application filed by the petitioner is premature one and as such, the writ petition is not maintainable. In addition to that he justified the action of the authority indicating that on the basis of the allegation of irregularities and unethical practices done by the petitioner without taking immediate action against him the High Power Committee was constituted to cause an enquiry into such allegation/unethical practices. The High Power Committee observed that the petitioner has acquired regular degree of MBA from an institution which had not been recognized by the AICTE. Consequence thereof he has been called upon to explain as to why an appropriate action shall not be taken against him. By this process the authorities have not committed any irregularity or illegality inasmuch as no finality has been reached whether a disciplinary action will be initiated against him or not at this stage rather he has been given ample opportunity in compliance with the principles of natural justice. Instead of filing his explanation, the petitioner filed this writ petition which is absolutely misconceived one. Therefore, learned counsel for opposite party Nos. 2 & 3 states that the writ petition should be dismissed in limine.