Lalatendu Mohanty v. State Of Odisha

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

W.P.(C) No.32908 of 2022 Lalatendu Mohanty ....

Petitioner Mr. P.K. Das, Advocate -versusState of Odisha & others ....

Opposite Parties Mr. P.C. Das, ASC

CORAM:

JUSTICE A.K.MOHAPATRA

ORDER

13.01.2023 I.A. No.17369 of 2022 04.

1.

This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement Order No.

(Virtual/Physical Mode).

2.

Heard Mr. P.K. Das, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as Mr. P.C. Das, learned Additional Standing Counsel appearing for the State-Opposite Parties. 3.

Considering the submissions made, the order dated 12.12.2022 is hereby recalled.

4.

Accordingly, the I.A. is disposed of.

W.P.(C) No.32908 of 2022 5.

Heard Mr. P.K. Das, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as Mr. P.C. Das, learned Additional Standing Counsel appearing for the State-Opposite Parties. 6.

The petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking direction to the opposite parties to permit him to report at one

// 2 // place i.e. at headquarter office, Kendrapara for both the actions such as suspension and proceeding.

7.

Mr. P.K. Das, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that while the petitioner was rendering service at headquarter office at Kendrapara, he was placed on suspension. But his headquarter was fixed at Jajpur Town office without any reason and the proceeding was initiated at headquarter office at Kendrapara. Thereby it causes harassment to the petitioner. More so, suspension allowance has not been paid to the petitioner. So far as attending the proceeding at headquarter office at Kendrapara is concerned, no financial benefit has been extended to the petitioner.

8.

Considering the contention raised by learned counsel for the parties and after going through the records, it appears that the present petitioner is the employee of headquarter office at Kendrapara and due to suspension, his headquarter has been fixed at Jajpur Town office, which is prejudiced to the petitioner. More so, the petitioner has already participated in the disciplinary proceeding after fixing his headquarter at Paradeep office, but he has not been paid travelling allowance rather he has been forced to participate in the proceeding which is not service jurisprudence, which the petitioner faces. 9.

In that view of the matter, this Court is of the considered view that the opposite parties may pass appropriate order fixing headquarter office at Kendrapara so as to enable the petitioner to participate in the proceeding at headquarter office at

// 3 // Kendrapara instead of Jajpur Town office. The said order shall be passed within a period of two weeks from the date of production of a copy of this order.

10.

With the aforesaid observation/direction, the writ petition stands disposed of.

11.

Urgent certified copy of this order be granted on proper application.

(A.K. Mohapatra) Judge Debasis