PURNENDU KISHOR MOHANTY Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The prayer of the petitioner is for a direction to the opposite parties 3 and 4 to reinstate him in his former post and release all service benefits, and for a direction to implement the order of the Director, Secondary Education, Orissa, which has been upheld by this Court and the Hon'ble Supreme Court.

(2.) The case of the petitioner is that, Buxi Jagabandhu English Medium School was established in the year 1973-74 and is a recognised institution. In response to an advertisement dated June 4, 1984 published in daily The Samaja, the petitioner along with others applied for the post of Librarian in the said school. The petitioner was selected by a selection board constituted by opposite party No. 3 and on recommendation of the selection board he was appointed as Librarian vide office order No. 106 dated August 14, 1984 in the scale of pay of Rs. 370-650.00with dearness allowance and additional dearness allowance. He joined in the post on August 16, 1984. Subsequently the petitioner was allowed to enjoy the scale of pay of Rs. 1005-1830.00 and was confirmed in the post on February 1, 1990.

(3.) In July, 1990 the Principal of the School communicated through notice that the second Saturday of every month would be treated as a working day, even though previously the school used to remain closed on second Saturdays. The decision of the Management, as communicated by the Principal, was protested by the employees of the school and since the management did not respond to the protest, the employees decided to take one day casual leave as a mark of protest against such decision. Pursuant to such action on the part of the employees, proceedings were started against some of the employees including the petitioner, and a letter was issued to the petitioner on March 6, 1991 allowing him subsistence allowance from December 17, 1990 to March 16, 1991. The petitioner was directed to appear in person for hearing before the Managing Committee on August 18, 1991 and on August 31, 1991 the Secretary of the Managing Committee of the School informed the petitioner that he had been found guilty of the charges and has been removed from service with effect from December 15, 1990. Annexure-3 is the removal order. The petitioner as well as some other employees who met with such fate, approached the Director, Secondary Education, Orissa, by way of filing appeals. The appeals were not disposed of by the Director, Secondary Education for which the petitioner filed OJC No. 5270 of 1992 before this Court and the same was disposed of on September 3, 1992 directing disposal of the appeal within a period of three months. After receipt of the order of this Court, the Director issued notices to the petitioner as well as the Managing Committee of the school and on hearing the parties, disposed of the appeal of the petitioner as well as five other such employees, namely, Dukhishyama Palatasingh, P.E.T., B. Naik, Mali, Ms. Minu Mohanty, Assistant Teacher and Smt. Sasirekha Sahu, Assistant Teacher, by his order dated February 20, 1993 finding that the school is a recognised one, that the Director, Secondary Education has jurisdiction to hear the appeal, and that the termination of services of the petitioner is in violation of the principles of natural justiice as well as bye-laws of the C.B.S.E. The punishment order of removal from service under Annexure-3 was quashed by the Director and the Managing Committee was directed to reinstate the petitioner with all service benefits from the date of termination. Copy of the said order passed by the Director is the subject-matter of Annexure-4. The petitioner states that, after the said order was passed, he submitted his joining report to the Principal of the school, but he was not allowed to join and perform his duties. In the meantime the Management of the School filed OJC No. 2951 of 1993 before this Court challenging the order of the Director passed under Annexure 4, wherein the petitioner was opposite party No. 4. This Court after hearing the parties, dismissed the writ application on September 7, 1993 and observed: