CHANDRAHASYA PATEL Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Sri J.Sahu, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Behera, learned Additional Standing Counsel for the State and Sri P.N. Patnaik, learned counsel for O.P.2.

(2.) This matter involves a challenge to the disengagement order, vide Anexure-4.

(3.) Assailing the impugned order at Annexure-4, Sri J. Sahu, learned counsel for the petitioner while seeking quashing the impugned order of disengagement taking this Court to the provision in the Circular from time to time appearing at Annexures-A/2 & B/2 contended that for involvement of no offence contemplated either in the Circulars at Annexure-A/2 or Annexure-A/3, the ground of disengagement of the petitioner involving Annexure-4 is improper. Sri Sahu, learned counsel for the petitioner further taking the statutory provision in the Mehamta Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Act, 2005 contended that Section 25 is the only provision for imposition of penalty involving Gram Rozgar Sevak, accordingly the order of disengagement at Annexure-4 becomes bad.