Isabella Mariam

The High Court of Orissa Single Bench of Justice Aditya Kumar Mohapatra has directed the reinstatement of a petitioner discharged from the post of Jail Warder. The Court held that the discharge order was issued in gross violation of Article 311(2) of the Constitution of India, as no inquiry was conducted, nor was the petitioner provided an opportunity to be heard. The Court quashed both the discharge order and the subsequent rejection of the petitioner's representation.

Further, the Court found no evidence of deliberate suppression of material facts by the petitioner in the attestation form. It concluded that the petitioner had neither knowledge of the pending criminal cases nor was there any adverse material disclosed even in the police verification report issued by the Deputy Superintendent of Police. In light of these findings, the Court directed the authorities to treat the discharge period as "on duty" and to calculate and disburse all consequential financial benefits accordingly within two months.

Also Read: Supreme Court Upholds Reproductive Autonomy | Grants Maternity Leave For Third Child From Second Marriage | Right To Maternity Leave Is A Facet Of Article 21

The case concerns the discharge of a candidate appointed as a Jail Warder following a recruitment drive initiated on 13 December 2022. The petitioner had submitted an application after obtaining a character certificate dated 17 May 2023 from the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Ganjam. Following the selection process, he was appointed to the post by an order dated 29 May 2023 and was posted at Sub-Jail, Daspalla.

While performing his duties, the petitioner received an office order dated 2 February 2024 from the Senior Superintendent of Circle Jail, Berhampur, discharging him from service. The order alleged suppression of information related to two criminal cases: Chamakhandi P.S. Case No.130 of 2022 and Chamakhandi P.S. Case No.48 of 2023. The discharge was made under Rule 59(2) and Rule 94(2) of the Odisha Model Jail Manual.

In response, the petitioner submitted a representation on 11 March 2024, asserting that he had no knowledge of either criminal case and was not involved in any such incidents. He described himself as a victim of mistaken identity and contended that the discharge was based on erroneous assumptions. When no action was taken, a reminder was sent on 24 June 2024. Eventually, the representation was rejected by a communication dated 18 July 2024 issued by the Director General of Prisons and Correctional Services.

During the hearing, counsel for the petitioner referred to the character certificate issued by the DSP (DIG), Ganjam, which indicated that no adverse record was found during verification for the period from 1998 to 12 May 2023. The petitioner argued that no show-cause notice had been issued before the discharge and that he was not provided an opportunity to be heard, violating the principles of natural justice.

The counsel further explained that the two police cases did not implicate the petitioner. In Chamakhandi P.S. Case No.130 of 2022, corresponding to G.R. Case No.613 of 2022, a final report was submitted stating insufficient evidence. The same was accepted by the Magistrate, effectively closing the case.

Regarding Chamakhandi P.S. Case No.48 of 2023 (earlier wrongly cited as Case No.84), corresponding to G.R. Case No.216 of 2023, the charge sheet submitted by the Investigating Officer specifically recorded that the petitioner was not involved in the incident. The petitioner had gone to Simanchal temple and was away during the occurrence. A village committee member had warned him to join a protest or face consequences. Upon returning, he chose not to participate after learning about police action.

The State, in its counter-affidavit, supported the discharge order, stating that the petitioner had failed to disclose pending criminal cases in the attestation form. It cited responses at Serial No.12 of the form where the petitioner had denied any arrest, prosecution, or related incidents. The State contended that this amounted to suppression of material facts and justified his discharge.

However, no material was produced to show that the petitioner had ever been arrested, detained, or summoned in connection with the alleged cases. The State also did not dispute the validity of the character certificate issued by the DSP, which found no adverse records against the petitioner.

"There exists no conflicts with regard to the factual position that prior to issuance of discharge order dated 02.02.2024, the Petitioner was never issued with a show-cause notice nor was he given any opportunity to explain his position."

"It is not a case that the Petitioner has been convicted in any criminal case, so that the authorities would be justified in their conduct of discharging the Petitioner from service by taking resolve to the proviso to Article 311(2)."

"Thus, the impugned letter of discharge issued by the Opposite Party No.4 is not saved under the proviso to Article 311(2) of the Constitution of India."

"The word 'suppression' in common parlance means a material information which was within the knowledge of the person who is making any disclosure/ declaration and such person has deliberately omitted to disclose or declare such fact before the authority."

"In the instant case... this Court found that even the certificate issued by the DSP (DIB), Ganjam does not disclose that any criminal case was pending against the Petitioner at Chamakhandi P.S."

"Moreover, the State-Opposite Parties have failed to bring on record any material which would indicate that the fact of pendency of the criminal cases were within the knowledge of the Petitioner."

"This Court has no hesitation to hold that the Opposite Parties have failed to establish the fact that the pendency of the above noted two criminal cases were within the knowledge of the Petitioner."

"The subsequent development in the above noted two criminal cases of the Chamakhandi P.S. also proves the innocence of the Petitioner."

"The final form has also been submitted in Chamakhandi P.S. Case No.130 of 2022... Similarly, in the other... Case No.48 of 2023... the I.O. has not included the name of the present Petitioner stating... he was not involved in the occurrence."

"The principal enunciated in Avtar Singh’s case (supra) clearly lays down the law that although suppressed material information does not give a person an unfettered right for appointment, at the same time the right of such person not to be dealt with arbitrarily is protected."

"This Court is of the view that the case of the Petitioner is somewhat similar to the one involved in the case of Ravindra Kumar (supra)."

"This Court has no hesitation to quash the impugned discharge order dated 02.02.2024 under Annexure-9 as well as the consequential order rejecting the representation of the Petitioner dated 18.07.2024 under Annexure-12."

"Therefore, the same are hereby quashed and the writ petition is allowed."

Also Read: Punjab & Haryana High Court Directs Passport Issuance Despite NDPS Trial |‘Mere Pendency Of Criminal Case Cannot Deny Right To Hold Passport’ | Allows Custody Of Passport With Trial Court

"While allowing the present writ petition, this Court is inclined to issue a writ of mandamus directing the Opposite Party Nos.4 & 5 to reinstate the Petitioner in service with all consequential service and financial benefits."

"Further, it is directed that the period of discharge be treated as ‘On Duty’ and the financial benefits accruing in favour of the Petitioner for the said period be also calculated and disbursed in favour of the Petitioner."

"Let the entire exercise be carried out within a period of two months."

Advocates Representing the Parties:

For the Petitioners: Mr. Satyanarayan Mohapatra, Advocate

For the Respondents: Mr. U.C. Jena, Additional Standing Counsel

Case Title: Sri P. Rajesh Reddy v. State of Odisha and Others

Case Number: W.P.(C) No.23409 of 2024

Bench: Justice Aditya Kumar Mohapatra

[Read/Download order]