AKSHAYA KUMAR MOHAPATRA Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ORDER of termination passed by the Governing Body of Deva Raya Nayapalli College (hereinafter referred to as the 'college') is the subject matter of challenge in this writ application, after its confirmation by the Director of Public Instruction, Higher Education Orissa.

(2.) MAIN plank of petitioner's argument is that though the order of termination was termed to be a simpliciter one, the background facts clearly show that it was a camouflage to avoid proceedings in the matter of termination. Reference is made to various allegations made by the college authorities and the allegations of misconduct made immediately prior to the order of termination and threats given for action. When the college authorities were satisfied that they have no material to substantiate the allegations, they adopted the novel method of labelling the, order of termination to be simpliciter one while in the background there is desire to harass the petitioner. The allegations of involvement in unauthorised and irregular financial transactions of college funds have not been touched and unauthorised absence of various occasions were highlighted by the college authorities with oblique motive, and there can be doubt that the decision to terminate was solely on the basis of allegations made above and therefore, the order of termination was bad. The Director of Higher Education, who heard the appeal filed by the petitioner referred to the connected matters and confirmed the order of termination. Stand of the college was to the effect that there is distinction between the motive for order of termination and the foundation thereof. The college authorities proceeded on the basis of materials available against the petitioner, but they thought it appropriate not to attach any stigma, and to terminate the services of the petitioner, whose continuance in the institution would have resulted in chaos.

(3.) IT is settled law that the court can lift the veil of the innocuous order to find whether it is the foundation or motive to pass the offending order. If misconduct is the foundation to pass the order then an enquiry into misconduct should be conducted and an action according to law should follow. But if it is not the motive it is not incumbent upon the competent officer to have the enquiry conducted and the service of a temporary employee could be terminated, in terms of the order of appointment or rules governing the field. Even if an enquiry was initiated, it could be dropped midway and action could be taken in terms of the rules or order of appointment. This view was highlighted by the Apex Court in State of U. P. and another v. Km. Prem Lata Misra and others : A. I. R. 1994 S. C. 2411.