Does the Orissa High Court reaffirm that disciplinary (stigmatic) termination of a contractual assistant professor requires compliance with Article 311(2) of the Constitution and that only the State Government (H&FW Department), not the college Dean, has power to terminate under Resolution No. 8967/H dated 25 April 2022?
Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Case Name | WP(C)/33349/2024 of DR. PURUSOTTAM SWAIN Vs STATE OF ODISHA |
| CNR | ODHC010945312024 |
| Date of Registration | 31-12-2024 |
| Decision Date | 18-08-2025 |
| Disposal Nature | Disposed Off |
| Judgment Author | MR. JUSTICE ADITYA KUMAR MOHAPATRA |
| Court | Orissa High Court |
| Bench | Single Judge Bench |
| Precedent Value | Binding precedential value |
| Overrules / Affirms | Affirms existing precedent on Article 311(2) protection for contractual employees |
| Type of Law | Administrative and Constitutional Law |
| Questions of Law |
|
| Ratio Decidendi | The petitioner’s service was governed by State Govt. Resolution No. 8967/H dated 25.04.2022, which reserves one-month notice to the Government for terminations simpliciter and vests disciplinary power in HFWD. Termination on misconduct is stigmatic and requires inquiry under Article 311(2). The record of a show-cause notice, College Council meeting and written statements satisfies natural justice. The Dean & Principal had no delegated jurisdiction—only the State Government can terminate under the scheme. The impugned Dean’s order dated 29.12.2024 is quashed. |
| Judgments Relied Upon |
|
| Logic / Jurisprudence Relied Upon |
|
| Facts as Summarised by the Court | The petitioner, appointed as Asst. Professor (Orthopaedics) on deputation from 22.05.2024 under contractual guidelines, was alleged to have assaulted a colleague on 20/21.12.2024. A College Council meeting on 23.12.2024 recorded his statement and submitted an Action Taken Report to D.M.E.T. The Dean & Principal, without State-level authority, terminated his service on 29.12.2024. Post-termination, he reverted to his substantive post and joined as LTRMO on 29.03.2025. |
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | All subordinate courts in Odisha and administrative authorities under H&FW Department |
| Persuasive For | Other High Courts |
| Overrules | Impugned Office Order No. 6 dated 29.12.2024 issued by Dean & Principal, MKCG MCH |
| Follows | Parshotam Lal Dhingra v. Union of India (1958) |
| Distinguishes | None specified |
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- Disciplinary (stigmatic) termination of contractual medical faculty triggers Article 311(2) protections—mandating framed charges, show-cause notice and formal hearing.
- One-month notice under Clause 9(1) applies only to non-stigmatic (“simpliciter”) terminations; misconduct terminations follow punitive procedure.
- Only the appointing authority specified in State Resolution No. 8967/H (i.e., H&FW Department via Government) can terminate service; Dean & Principal lack standalone power.
- Record of committee proceedings—including written statements—satisfies natural justice; oral directions or informal notices are insufficient.
- Termination from deputation does not extinguish primary service; reversion orders and fresh postings can render writ petitions infructuous.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
-
Service Scheme & Guidelines
- Resolution No. 8967/H dated 25.04.2022 (Clauses 3, 9(1)) governs contractual engagement and vesting of termination powers in Government.
- Appendix-1 agreement (Clause 8) allows HFWD to terminate on misconduct.
-
Nature of Termination
- Distinction between termination simpliciter (one-month notice) and stigmatic termination (disciplinary).
- Stigmatic termination squarely attracts Article 311(2) safeguards.
-
Natural Justice & Inquiry
- Dean’s letter dated 21.12.2024 called a College Council meeting.
- Petitioner attended on 23.12.2024, submitted written statement; Action Taken Report filed.
- Record demonstrates compliance with Article 311(2).
-
Competent Authority
- Appointment order (22.05.2024) references delegation under Resolution No. 1532/H dated 19.01.2024—Dean’s power limited to selection; no power to terminate.
- Only HFWD/State Government holds termination jurisdiction under contractual scheme.
-
Conclusion
- Impugned order dated 29.12.2024 by Dean & Principal is void for lack of jurisdiction; quashed.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioner
- Guidelines require one-month notice for termination simpliciter; none was served.
- No formal charge sheet or show-cause notice; principles of natural justice breached.
- Dean & Principal had no authority; only State Government can terminate.
- FIR alone cannot prove misconduct without inquiry.
Opposite Parties (State & Dean & Principal)
- Dean & Principal authorized by State Resolution No. 1532/H (19.01.2024) and D.M.E.T. approval to appoint and terminate.
- Petitioner received formal notice (21.12.2024) and participated in College Council meeting (23.12.2024).
- Termination on disciplinary grounds obviates need for one-month notice.
- Immediate termination was necessary to maintain campus peace; petitioner reverted to substantive post thereafter.
Factual Background
Dr. Purusottam Swain, an OMHS-cadre medical officer, was appointed Assistant Professor (Orthopaedics) on deputation/contractual basis at MKCG MCH on 22.05.2024 under State Government Resolution No. 8967/H. In the early hours of 21.12.2024, he was alleged to have physically assaulted a colleague in the PG hostel canteen. A College Council meeting on 23.12.2024 recorded his statement and submitted an Action Taken Report to D.M.E.T. The Dean & Principal terminated his deputation service on 29.12.2024 without one-month notice. Post-termination, he reverted to DHS and joined as LTRMO at SDH Bhanjanagar on 29.03.2025.
Statutory Analysis
Resolution No. 8967/H (25.04.2022)
- Clause 3: D.M.E.T. as selecting authority; Dean & Principal may conduct selection in exigency.
- Clause 9(1): Engagement temporary, year-to-year, max 4 years; Government reserves one-month notice termination power.
Appendix-1 Agreement
- Clause 8(a),(d): HFWD may terminate for misconduct; “competent authority of HFWD” to exercise power.
Constitution
- Article 311(2): Mandatory inquiry and right to be heard before dismissal, removal or reduction in rank on disciplinary grounds.
Alert Indicators
- Precedent Followed – Article 311(2) safeguards reaffirmed and contractual termination jurisprudence upheld.