GOPINATH BHANJA Vs. STATE OF ORISSA AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Petitioner, who was appointed against the 2nd post of Lecturer in Oriya in Akhandalmani College, Palasahi, in the district of Bhadrak has filed this application to quash the Order Dated 22.11.1995 passed by the Director directing the Governing Body of the College to consider his case for employment as he was not in a position to protect himself from the termination made by the Management at a time when he was rather busy to protect himself from the charge of alleged murder. The short fact of the case, in hand, is that Akhandalmani College, Palasahi in the district of Bhadrak was established in the year 1982 & got concurrence from the prescribed authority in the year 1987 & received GIA w.e.f. 01.06.1994. Therefore, it has acquired the status of an aided education institution within the meaning of Section 3(b) of the Orissa Education Act, 1969. The Petitioner was appointed against the 2nd post of Lecturer in Oriya in +2 wing of the said College on 29.10.1983 by the Governing Body of the college. He joined on the very same date & continued to discharge his duties. Because of his involvement in a criminal case, he was taken to custody & thereafter he was released on bail by the Sessions Judge, Balasore on 07.04.1988. Because of his involvement in the criminal case, he was not allowed to discharge his duty & after release on bail, he requested the Secretary of the Governing Body of the college to allow him to discharge his duty in the College but he was not allowed on the plea that unless he is acquitted in the criminal case, the Governing Body would not take him back into service. The Petitioner made a grievance before the Director, Higher Education, Orissa. When the matter was sub -judice , the Petitioner was acquitted in the criminal case vide Judgment dated 22.11.1998 by the Sessions Judge, Balasore in S.T. Case No. 82 of 1988. On being acquitted from criminal case, again the Petitioner requested the Governing Body to take him back into service with immediate effect but the same has not been taken into consideration by the Secretary of the Governing Body. Subsequently, the Petitioner approached the Director, Higher Education ventilating his grievance which yielded no result. Thereafter, the Petitioner approached this Court by filing OJC No. 2586 of 1995 & this Court disposed of the said Writ Petition stating that there would be no bar for the Director to consider the appeal of the Petitioner. Pursuant to such observation, the Director gave notice to the parties & upon hearing passed the impugned Order Dated 22.11.1995 vide Annexure -5. Being aggrieved by that order in Annexure -5, the Petitioner approached this Court by filing the present application.

(2.) MR . K.K. Swain, Learned Counsel for the Petitioner strenuously urged that the Director instead of remitting back the matter to the Governing Body for consideration should have passed the order of reinstatement. It is stated that the Governing Body terminated the service of the Petitioner because of his alleged involvement in a Criminal case. The said fact having not been taken note of, he could have directed the Governing Body to reinstate the Petitioner in service. Therefore, the impugned order remitting the matter back to the Governing Body cannot sustain in the eye of law.

(3.) CONSIDERING the contentions, raised by the Learned Counsel for the parties & after going through the records, it appears that, the Petitioner who was appointed against 2nd post in Odia in Akhandalmani College, Palasahi, Bhadrak, he was not allowed to discharge his duty in the college by the Governing Body, who is the employer of the Petitioner due to his involvement in a criminal case & on acquittal being made by the competent Court of law, when he was not allowed to discharge his duties, he approached the Director by filing a representation/appeal. When the same was not adhered to, he approached this Court by filing a writ application bearing OJC No. 2586/95 & this Court observed that there would be no bar for the Director to consider the appeal of the Petitioner. The Petitioner was appointed on 29.10.1983 & continued till 17.02.1988 & he remained absent from duty & subsequently explanation was called for from him for his unauthorized absence vide letter dated 22.08.1998 & he was asked by the management to show cause as to why his temporary service would not be terminated because of absence of duty by letter dated 07.03.1988. The Secretary of the Governing Body directed the Petitioner to remain present specifically in the college on 15.03.1988 for a personal hearing for his unauthorized absence but the Petitioner did not appear for personal hearing. Consequently, the Governing Body passed the resolution on 08.04.1998 terminating his service which was issued on 10.04.1988 as the Petitioner was involved in a criminal case for the charge of murder, & remained in custody from 4.4.1988 to 07.04.1988. For that reason he remained absent from the College. Subsequently, on 22.11.1988 he was acquitted from the charge of murder. After acquittal from the Criminal case, the Management did not allow the Petitioner to continue in service, & therefore, he filed an appeal before the Director. On consideration of the materials available on record, the Director passed the following order.