SRI JAGABANDHU SAHOO Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Writ Petition is directed against order of the Director, Higher Education, Annexure - 1 (b).

(2.) FACT involved in this case, in short, is that Petitioner was appointed as Lecturer on 07.08.1982. He submitted his resignation on 30.10.1985 and the Governing Body, Opp. Party No. 3 accepted the resignation on 07.11.1985. Petitioner filed O.J.C. No. 6011 of 1996. That Writ Petition was disposed of on 13.08.1996 with direction to Opposite Party No. 2 to dispose of the appeal/representation, Annexure -2(b) dated 16.05.1996. Pursuant to that direction, on 29.04.1997 that appeal was disposed of as per order, Annexure -3. The appeal petition of the Petitioner was dismissed. As against that order, Petitioner filed O.J.C. No. 7313 of 1997. On 06.04.1999, while disposing of that Writ Petition, this Court considered the submission of the Petitioner that the claim of the Petitioner about fabrication of resignation letter was not properly considered by Opposite Party No. 2, though he took such ground in the appeal memo/representation. This Court thus quashed the order, Annexure -3 and directed that - "The Director will consider the appeal afresh and dispose of the same by the end of July, 1999 on the basis of materials available on record." After hearing the parties, Opposite Party No. 2 passed the impugned order, Annexure 1 (b) recording the finding in favour of the Governing Body and as against the Petitioner to the effect that the Petitioner had tendered resignation and his subsequent conduct was sufficient to prove the same. Recording such reasoning, the appeal was dismissed.

(3.) OPPOSITE Parties 3 and 4 have filed two separate counter affidavits so also Opposite Party Nos. 1 and 2 have filed a counter affidavit besides a counter to the rejoinder of the Petitioner. On a conjoint reading of the aforesaid counter affidavits, it appears that they advance a common plea in denying to the allegation of the Petitioner and defending the action of Opposite Party No. 3 so also justifying the order passed by Opposite Party No. 2.