STATE OF ORISSA Vs. SIBA PRASAD SWAIN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Challenge, in this Writ Petition, is made to the Order Dated 03.01.2006 passed in O.A. No. 1135 of 1996 under Annexure -1 by Orissa Administrative Tribunal, Bhubaneswar Bench, Bhubaneswar (hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal') by which the termination of service of the Opposite Party has been struck down being not in accordance with the rules.

(2.) THE factual background in a nut shell is that the Opposite Party Sri Siba Prasad Swain was appointed as Junior Clerk on ad hoc basis for 89 days under Office Order Dated 10.09.1991 (Annexure -2) issued by the Chief Engineer, Designs, Irrigation, Orissa, Bhubaneswar (Petitioner No. 2). Sri Swain joined the said post on 25.09.1991. While working as such on ad hoc basis, the Opposite Party made a representation to Petitioner No. 2 for his appointment as Assistant Embankment Inspector. As there was vacancy in the said post, the Opposite Party was given appointment as Assistant Embankment Inspector under Order Dated 25.10.1991 (Annexure -3). The Opposite Party joined the said post on 28.10.1991. Subsequently, the Government in Water Resources Department issued Order No. 29508 dated 04.11.1991 (Annexure -4) for termination of service of the Opposite Party. Pursuant to the said order, the service of the Opposite Party was terminated vide Memo No. 7577 dated 07.11.1991 (Annexure -5). Challenging the said order of termination, the Opposite Party approached the Tribunal in O.A. No. 1135 of 1996. The Tribunal vide its Order Dated 03.01.2006 allowed the O.A. on the ground that the service of the Opposite Party was terminated without assigning any reason and affording opportunity of personal hearing. While doing so, the Tribunal relied on its earlier order passed in O.A.No.1944 of 1993. It is the said order which has been challenged in this Writ Petition.

(3.) MR . S.D. Das, Learned Senior Advocate appearing for the Opposite Party contended that the Opposite Party was appointed in the post of Assistant Embankment Inspector in Quality Control and Research Division, Bhawanipatna under Petitioner No. 2 through regular process of recruitment. Before such appointment was given, the Opposite Party was called for an interview and was required to submit necessary documents. Therefore, there is no violation of any statutory rule and the Opposite Party was duly selected for the said post. The service of the Opposite Party was terminated without assigning any reason and affording him opportunity of being heard. No notice was served on the Opposite Party prior to passing of the order of termination. Therefore, the Opposite Party, who was appointed in a substantive post, should not have been terminated without following the principles of natural justice. The Opposite Party stands on the similar footing to that of the applicants in O.A. No. 1944 of 1993. It was further argued that services of 12 persons were terminated on the ground, of illegal appointment. One of them, namely, Asish Dutta and two others moved the Tribunal challenging the said order of termination and the Tribunal by its Order Dated 13.03.1996 struck down the said order of termination holding the same to be illegal. By virtue of the said order, those three persons along with one S.N. Das were taken back to the said posts and were allowed to continue in service. The case of present Opposite Party, who stood in the similar footing and asked for identical relief, having not been considered by the Petitioners, it amounts to gross discrimination and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. The Tribunal after considering all these aspects allowed the O.A. filed by the Opposite Party. Therefore, the Writ Petition is liable to be dismissed.