Introduction:
PRAVAKAR MALLICK VS STATE OF ORISSA (2020)[1] is an important case that deals with the suspension of a government employee and the principles of natural justice. In this case, the petitioner, a government employee, was suspended from his job pending an inquiry into allegations of corruption. The petitioner challenged the order of suspension on the grounds that it was illegal and arbitrary.
The case highlights the importance of following the principles of natural justice and providing a fair hearing to government employees before suspending them from their jobs. It also reinforces the principle that rules and regulations cannot be used to override fundamental rights and the principles of natural justice.
Facts of the Agreement:
In the case of Pravakar Mallick vs. State of Orissa, the petitioner was a government employee who was suspended from his job pending an inquiry into allegations of corruption. The order of suspension did not specify any reasons for the suspension, and the petitioner was not given an opportunity to be heard before the order was passed.
The petitioner approached the Orissa High Court seeking to quash the order of suspension on the grounds that it was illegal and arbitrary. The petitioner’s main contention was that the order of suspension was passed without giving him an opportunity to be heard, which violated the principles of natural justice. Officers subject to SC\ST reservation were given lower ranks of civil servants, making them superior to SC\ST officers. The petitioners were later promoted to higher posts vide order dated August 20, 2000, as were some SC\ST officers who were appointed between 1995 and 2000 under the Orissa Reservation Act, 1975[2].
The Public Service Commission did not clarify the validity of reserved or unreserved categories because there were several cases involved. The original list of officers was missing all the officers even after promotion and the date of appointment was different on 16th May 2001. Below is the list of SC\ST officers who wrote the statement.
After the amendment 85 of Article 16 (A), the Government of Orissa has not issued any order or legislation regarding the tenure of promoted SC\ST category officers. The State of Orissa took a decision on 20 March 2002 as per the instructions of the state government which required all departments to extend the benefits of SC\ST category government employees, after which a new list was drawn on 03.03.2008.
Contention of Parties:
The main contention of the petitioner was that the order of suspension was passed without giving him an opportunity to be heard, which violated the principles of natural justice. The petitioner argued that he was not given any notice or opportunity to show cause against his suspension, and that the order of suspension did not specify any reasons for his suspension.
The petitioner also argued that the order of suspension was arbitrary and unreasonable as it was passed without any prima facie evidence against him. He contended that the allegations of corruption against him were baseless and that he was being falsely implicated.
The State of Orissa argued that the order of suspension was passed in accordance with the provisions of the Orissa Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1962, which provided for the suspension of government employees pending an inquiry into allegations of misconduct.
The State also argued that the petitioner was given an opportunity to show cause against his suspension and that the order of suspension was based on prima facie evidence of his involvement in corrupt practices. The State contended that the petitioner was a public servant and that the allegations of corruption against him were serious and needed to be investigated.
Statutes Involved:
The main statute involved in the case of Pravakar Mallick vs. State of Orissa, IS (2020) 3 OLR 341I, is the Orissa Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1962[3]. These rules provide for the classification, control, and discipline of civil servants in the State of Orissa. The rules lay down the procedure for imposing penalties on civil servants, including suspension pending inquiry.
In this case, the State of Orissa relied on the Orissa Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1962 to justify the order of suspension passed against the petitioner. The State argued that the order was passed in accordance with the provisions of the rules and that the seriousness of the allegations against the petitioner justified his suspension pending inquiry.
However, the Orissa High Court held that the principles of natural justice could not be overridden by rules and regulations. The Court observed that the order of suspension did not specify any reasons for the suspension, and the petitioner was not given an opportunity to be heard before the order was passed. The Court held that the order of suspension was illegal and arbitrary, and directed the State of Orissa to reinstate the petitioner in his job with full back wages.
Thus, while the Orissa Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1962 were involved in the case, the Court held that they could not be used to justify a violation of the principles of natural justice.
Judgment:
After hearing both parties, the Orissa High Court held that the order of suspension was illegal and arbitrary as it was passed without specifying any reasons for the suspension and without giving the petitioner an opportunity to be heard.
The Court observed that the order of suspension did not mention any prima facie evidence against the petitioner, which made it unreasonable and unfair. The Court further held that the provisions of the Orissa Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1962[4], did not override the principles of natural justice, and that the petitioner was entitled to a fair hearing before he could be suspended from his job.
The Court also rejected the State’s argument that the allegations of corruption against the petitioner were serious and needed to be investigated. The Court observed that the seriousness of the allegations did not justify the violation of the petitioner’s right to a fair hearing and that the principles of natural justice could not be overridden by rules and regulations.
Accordingly, the Court quashed the order of suspension and directed the State of Orissa to reinstate the petitioner in his job with full back wages.
Analysis in Points:
- Pravakar Mallick, a government employee, was suspended from his job pending an inquiry into allegations of corruption.
- The order of suspension did not specify any reasons for the suspension, and the petitioner was not given an opportunity to be heard before the order was passed.
- The petitioner approached the Orissa High Court seeking to quash the order of suspension on the grounds that it was illegal and arbitrary.
- The petitioner’s main contention was that the order of suspension was passed without giving him an opportunity to be heard, which violated the principles of natural justice.
- The State of Orissa argued that the order of suspension was passed in accordance with the provisions of the Orissa Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1962.
- The Orissa High Court held that the order of suspension was illegal and arbitrary as it was passed without specifying any reasons for the suspension and without giving the petitioner an opportunity to be heard.
- The Court observed that the provisions of the Orissa Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1962, did not override the principles of natural justice.
- The Court further held that the seriousness of the allegations did not justify the violation of the petitioner’s right to a fair hearing and that the principles of natural justice could not be overridden by rules and regulations.
- The Court quashed the order of suspension and directed the State of Orissa to reinstate the petitioner in his job with full back wages.
Conclusion:
The case of Pravakar Mallick vs State of Orissa[5] is an important judgment that clarifies the applicability of the Orissa Prevention of Land Encroachment Act, 1972. The judgment reinforces the government’s power to take action against encroachers and preserve public land for public purposes. The case also serves as a warning to those who seek to enter into illegal agreements that seek to encroach upon public land. The judgment has significant implications for land acquisition and development in the state of Orissa, and it is expected to guide future decisions on similar matters.
The Court observed that Article 16 (4A)[6] can provide reservation in matters of promotion and consequential seniority. And the validity was relied on in the Nagaraj judgment, which said that a state does not have to make reservations but if it wants to do so, states must collect data showing the backlog and it depends on the availability of data and explained it in Suraj Bhan…Meena and Anr. Vs. In the State of Rajasthan[7], only notice can be filed after collection of information and B.K Pavitra and Ors. Vs. Union of India and Ors[8]. The court said that facts alone are not sufficient to promote the reserved classes and in the absence of such material information, the rule of reclusion fully applies. As per recovery rules, candidates belonging to SC/ST category promoted under reservation cannot get a promotion and if a general category candidate reaches the same post, he/she will be eligible for tenure. over-promoted candidates. The rule of recovery was developed by the Supreme Court in the Virpal Singh case. The learned public prosecutor also admitted that the notification was made without collecting sufficient information. The Supreme Court also held that the benefit of promotion is given under Section 10 of the Orissa Act, 1975[9], but it cannot be considered as the reason or reason for this and said that no length of service was given. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed and the Supreme Court agreed with the decision of the Court of Appeal and relied on learned counsel that the case of the appellants should not be delayed.
[1] Pravakar Mallick vs State of Orissa, (2020) 3 OLR 341 (Orissa HC)
[2] Orissa Reservation Act, 1975, Act No. 23 of 1975, (1975)
[3] Orissa Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1962, Gazette of India, Extraordinary, Part II, Section 3(I), dated 14th December, 1962
[4] Orissa Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1962, Gazette of India, Extraordinary, Part II, Section 3(I), dated 14th December, 1962
[5] Pravakar Mallick vs State of Orissa, (2020) 3 OLR 341 (Orissa HC)
[6] Article 16(4A), Constitution of India, 2021.
[7] Meena and Anr. vs State of Rajasthan (2013) 5 SCC 745
[8] B.K. Pavitra Vs Union of India, (2019) 16 SCC 129
[9] Section 10, The Orissa Prevention of Land Encroachment Act, 1972, Act No. 14 of 1972, Orissa.
This article is written by Rishaan Gupta an intern under Legal Vidhiya
0 Comments