Significant Judgments
Justice Biraja Prasanna Satapathy
CASE TITLE : BAIJAYANTI NAYAK V. STATE OF ODISHA AND OTHERS
CASE NO : W.P.(C) No. 34453 of 2021
DATE OF JUDGMENT : January 03, 2024
Service Law – Suspension – Competence of authority to initiate disciplinary proceedings – Dissolution of Governing Body – Applicability of rules to block grant employees – Petitioner, a Lecturer in an aided college, challenged her suspension by the Additional District Magistrate (ADM), acting as President of the dissolved Governing Body (GB), contending lack of statutory competence to initiate disciplinary actions or suspend her – High Court held that under the Orissa Education Act, 1969, and 1991 Rules, only a duly constituted GB could initiate disciplinary proceedings and the ADM, as an individual, lacked such authority – Suspension orders were further invalidated for non-compliance with Rule 21 of the Odisha Education (Recruitment & Conditions of Service of Teachers & Members of the Staff of Aided Educational Institutions) Rules, 1974, requiring approval within 30 days – Court affirmed applicability of 1974 Rules to employees in block grant institutions, rejecting arguments of exclusion – Disciplinary actions were declared void ab initio, suspension orders lapsed, and petitioner was directed to be reinstated – Notification upheld in part but limited to procedural functions of President, excluding substantive powers of GB
The petitioner, a lecturer in History at Biju Patnaik Women’s Degree College in Odisha, was appointed in 1993 and subsequently served as Principal-in-Charge of the college. Following the dissolution of the college’s Governing Body (“GB”) by a state government notification in January 2020, the Additional District Magistrate (ADM) was appointed as the President of the Governing Body. Subsequently, the petitioner was suspended by the ADM, acting in this capacity, under a disciplinary proceeding initiated against her. The petitioner contested this suspension, arguing that the ADM, as the President, lacked the authority to take disciplinary actions in the absence of a duly constituted GB.
The petitioner argued that the ADM, as the President of the GB, could not exercise the GB’s collective powers. Relying on Sri Sathya Sai Seva Organization v. State of Odisha (2008), the petitioner emphasized that the President, as an individual, could not act in place of a GB, which is statutorily defined as a body of individuals. Further, the petitioner contended that the initiation of disciplinary proceedings was void since the 1974 Rules applied only to fully aided institutions and not to institutions receiving block grants, like her college.
The State, represented by the Additional Government Advocate, argued that the notification of January 2020 explicitly empowered the ADM to act as the President of the GB and that the petitioner had failed to challenge the ADM’s appointment under this notification. It was further submitted that the ADM’s authority included the power to suspend employees and initiate disciplinary proceedings. They also contended that prior decisions, such as Sri Sathya Sai Seva Organization, were inapplicable due to differing facts.
The court examined the statutory framework under the Orissa Education Act, 1969, and the Orissa Education (Establishment, Recognition and Management of Private Colleges) Rules, 1991. It noted that the GB, under Section 7 of the Act and Rule 29 of the 1991 Rules, is responsible for the institution’s management and disciplinary matters. The President’s role, as defined in Rule 31, was limited to implementing decisions made by the GB, and no provision allowed the President to act independently in disciplinary matters.
The court heavily relied on Sri Sathya Sai Seva Organization, which invalidated similar actions by a single individual acting as the GB. The judgment clarified that the President could not assume the GB’s functions, even under extraordinary circumstances like dissolution.
The court addressed whether the 1974 Rules applied to block grant institutions, referencing its earlier judgment in October 2023. It concluded that the 1974 Rules apply equally to institutions under the grant-in-aid and block grant schemes. Since the petitioner was employed under such rules, the ADM’s actions lacked the necessary procedural compliance mandated by Rule 21, which requires Director approval for suspensions.
The court ruled that the President of the GB, as an individual, lacked the statutory competence to initiate disciplinary proceedings or suspend employees. Even the notification empowering the ADM as President did not delegate the GB’s substantive powers to the ADM. The principle of per incuriam was applied to invalidate earlier decisions supporting the ADM’s authority, as they overlooked relevant statutory provisions and judicial precedents. Consequently, the court quashed the government’s order authorizing disciplinary actions by the ADM and directed the reinstatement of the petitioner.
This judgment has significant implications for governance in aided educational institutions in Odisha. Legally, it reinforces the principle that statutory functions requiring collective decision-making cannot be delegated to individuals, preserving the integrity of administrative procedures. The court’s application of the per incuriam principle ensures that past deviations do not perpetuate flawed governance structures.
CASE TITLE : PRIYANKA GOUDA V. STATE OF ODISHA AND OTHERS
CASE NO : W.P.(C) Nos. 22656 & 22661 of 2024
DATE OF JUDGMENT : October 09, 2024
Municipal Law – No-confidence motion – Procedural compliance and delegation – Petitioners challenged a notice dated 4-9-2024 for a no-confidence motion against the Chairperson of Purusottampur NAC, alleging non-compliance with Section 54(2)(c) of the Odisha Municipal Act, 1950, improper service, and lack of requisite attachments – High Court held that the notice, along with the requisition and resolution, was validly served on councillors and affixed on the petitioners’ doors after refusal, satisfying procedural requirements; delegation of service to the Executive Officer was lawful – Petitioners’ concealment of prior knowledge of the requisition and resolution barred them from equitable relief – Clean hands doctrine – Suppression of material facts – Petitioners alleged procedural irregularities in the no-confidence motion notice but failed to disclose prior knowledge of the requisition and resolution – High Court held that suppression of material facts disentitles petitioners to equitable relief.
The writ petitions were filed by the Chairperson and two councillors of Purusottampur Notified Area Council (NAC) challenging a notice issued by the Collector and District Magistrate, Ganjam, calling for a no-confidence motion against the Chairperson. The notice, dated 04.09.2024, was based on a requisition signed by nine councillors. The petitioners contended that the notice violated Section 54(2)(c) of the Odisha Municipal Act, 1950, as it was not properly served and lacked the requisite accompanying documents, namely the requisition and proposed resolution. Additionally, it was argued that seven of the nine signatories had defected to another political party before the notice was issued, rendering the requisition invalid. The petitioners sought quashing of the notice and argued procedural irregularities in its service.
The petitioners asserted that the impugned notice was issued in violation of Section 54(2)(c) of the Act, which mandates that the notice must include a copy of the requisition and the proposed resolution. They claimed that the notice served on them lacked these attachments and was affixed on their doors after their refusal to accept it, raising questions about its validity.
The respondents argued that the notice was properly served in accordance with the law. They submitted that the notice, along with the requisition and resolution, was affixed on the petitioners’ doors after their refusal to accept it, which constitutes valid service under the law. They asserted that factual disputes, such as the validity of service, cannot be adjudicated under writ jurisdiction. They also invoked the principle that petitioners must come to court with clean hands, citing K.D. Sharma v. Steel Authority of India Ltd. (2008), and argued that the petitioners concealed material facts, including their knowledge of the requisition.
The court examined the procedural requirements under Section 54(2)(c) of the Odisha Municipal Act, which mandates that a no-confidence motion notice must be served along with the requisition and resolution. Based on the original records, it was found that the notice, requisition, and resolution were duly served to ten of the thirteen councillors on 05.09.2024. For the petitioners, who refused to accept the notice, it was affixed on their doors as per the law. The court rejected the petitioners’ claim that only the notice, and not the accompanying documents, was affixed. This factual dispute was deemed unsuitable for determination under writ jurisdiction. The court relied on Mahinder Singh Gill, which states that orders must stand on their stated reasons, but found the petitioners’ objections unsubstantiated.
The court also observed that the petitioners failed to disclose their prior knowledge of the requisition and resolution in their petitions. Referring to K.D. Sharma, the court reiterated that suppression of material facts disentitles litigants to relief in equity. Consequently, it ruled that the petitioners did not approach the court with clean hands.
Finally, the court addressed the procedural validity of delegating service of the notice to another authority, as permitted under the Act. It concluded that the Collector’s authorization of service through the Executive Officer was lawful and consistent with Section 54(2)(c).
The court dismissed both writ petitions holding that the notice dated 04.09.2024 was validly issued and served in compliance with the Odisha Municipal Act, 1950. It vacated the interim order preventing consequential actions on the no-confidence motion and allowed the results of the vote to proceed.
This judgment reaffirms the principle that statutory procedures, while mandatory, should be evaluated pragmatically in cases involving disputed facts. The ruling strengthens accountability in local bodies by discouraging frivolous challenges to no-confidence motions, ensuring smoother functioning of democratic institutions.