ADIKANDA JENA Vs. STATE OF ORISSA AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE two Petitioners are respectively the Bearer and Clerk -cum -Typist of the Anandapur College and having been placed under suspension under identical circumstances have challenged the orders of suspension in the two writ applications. Since the facts relating to both the cases are the same they are disposed of by this common judgment.

(2.) BOTH the Petitioners were issued letters on 11 -4 -1988 by opp. party No. 3, the Principal of the College, directing them to show cause as to why disciplinary action would not be taken against them since it had been reported by the Officer -in -charge, Ghasipura P.S. that the Petitioner in O.J.C. No. 2095/89 had surrendered in Court on 15 -2 -1989 and was remanded to jail custody till 17 -2 -1989 in connection with Ghasipura P.S. Case No. 16 dated 10 -2 -1989 and the Petitioner in O.J.C. No. 2099/89 had been arrested in connection with the same case and forwarded to Court in custody on 11 -2 -1989 and remanded to jail custody till 14 -3 -1989, but that the casual leave application of the former reached the Botany Department on 15 -2 -1989 directly without having come through the jail authorities and the casual leave application of the latter was received in the College on 14 -2 -1989 directly without the same having been sent through the jail authorities. Thus, in substance the Petitioners were asked to show cause for their leave applications having been sent to the college authorities directly without having come through the jail authorities. The Petitioner in O.J.C. No. 2095/89 submitted his explanation that he had surrendered before the Court on 15 -2 -1989 at 4.30 p.m. and was subsequently enlarged on bail and that before that in the forenoon of 15 -2 -1989 he had applied for casual leave on the ground of Court work and hence the application had been sent directly. The Petitioner in O.J.C. No. 2099/89 also submitted his reply to the notice to show cause on 20 -4 -1981 although the same has not been annexed to the writ petition A communication was made thereafter from the office of the Director, Higher Education, Orissa, Bhubaneswar, opposite party No. 2, that the Petitioners should not have been allowed to join the college when they had been arrested and detained in jail custody beyond forty -eight hours and that they should have been suspended as per the provisions of R.12(2) of the Orissa Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1962. On the basis of such communication from the office of the opposite party No. 2, a resolution was passed by the college on 31 -5 -1989 that as per the report of the Officer -in charge, Ghasipura P.S. sent through his letter of 23 -3 -1989, the Petitioners were found to have been involved in a criminal case and had been arrested and kept in jail custody for more than forty -eight hours. The matter had been referred to opposite party No. 2 whose reply of 5 -5 -1383 had been received and was placed before the governing body of the college in consideration of which it was resolved that both the Petitioners would be placed under suspension with effect from 1 -6 -1989. The resolution has been annexed as Annexure -4 to the writ petition in O.J.C. No. 2035/89 and Annexure -3 to the writ petition in O.J.C. No. 2099/89. In pursuance of the resolution, the Petitioners were placed under suspension by orders passed on 31 -5 -1989 as per Annexure -5 in the first case and Annexure -4 in the second case.

(3.) OPPOSITE parties 3 and 4 have filed counter affidavits in both the cases. Their stand as disclosed in the counter affidavits is that the Petitioners were involved in a criminal case under Section 147, 148, 323, 324, 504, 307 and 149, IPC and their involvement in a criminal case is violative of R.11 of the Orissa Education (Recruitment and Conditions of Services of Teachers and Members of the Staff of Aided Educational Institutions) Rules, 1974. On consideration of the report received from the Officer -in -charge, Ghasipura P.S. it was decided by the governing body to place them under suspension with effect from 1 -6 -1989. The Petitioners had been earlier asked to show cause as per Annexure -1 prior to initiation of disciplinary proceedings under R.21 of the Recruitment R.and as the period of suspension continued to be more than forty days, the opposite party No. 2 was moved who accorded permission by his letter of 5 -5 -1989. It is immaterial whether opposite party No. 2 quoted a different rule which is not applicable to the Petitioners and that the Director and the governing body of the college had the power otherwise to take such action.