'Govt Is Model Employer, Can't Act Like East India Company': Orissa High Court Quashes 'Unreasoned' Debarment Order Against Judiciary Applicant

The Orissa High Court has come to the rescue of a Schedule Caste (SC) Court employee who was permanently debarred from government service as he applied for the post of Civil Judge and was selected in the Odisha Judicial Service (OJS) without obtaining a 'No Objection Certificate' (NOC) from his then employer.

A fault was found with the impugned order since no specific reason was assigned as to why a 'permanent debarment order' was passed. The Division Bench of Justice Dixit Krishna Shripad and Justice Mruganka Sekhar Sahoo observed –

“The authority who makes an order in exercise of statutory power cannot say that the reasons are available in the file that is not indicated in the order itself. In a constitutionally ordained Welfare State a citizen cannot be told that the reasons for a decision are stacked in the Godown of the Government. After all, ours is not the East India Company of bygone era. The Government has to conduct itself as a model employer vide Bhupendra Nath Hazarika v. State of Assam, AIR 2013 SC 234.”

Case Background

The petitioner Dibakar Patra, a former Court employee, had applied to participate in the selection process of OJS 2016-17 pursuant to the notification published by the Odisha Public Service Commission (OPSC). At the conclusion of the three-tier examination, he was selected in the final merit list (dated March 02, 2017) and was placed at 'Rank 70'.

However, subsequently he was found to have applied for the post not through his employer, as required under the notification, nor did he procure the NOC before gaining entry to the recruitment process. The respondent authorities, therefore, were irked by such violation of rules. As an ensuing step, an order was passed debarring him permanently from government employment.

OJS Rules requiring NOC not unconstitutional

Being aggrieved by the aforesaid debarment order, the petitioner had challenged the constitutional vires of Rule 18(2) and proviso to Rule 19(1) of the Odisha Superior Judicial Service and Orissa Judicial Service Rules, 2007 ('the Rules'). The proviso to Rule 19(1) requires a judiciary applicant, if he is already in any Government service, to submit the application through the appointing authority.

It was an admitted position that the petitioner had faulted so far as the above requirement was concerned since he did not apply for the examination through his the then employer. However, it was argued on his behalf that such proviso is unconstitutional being violative of Articles 14 and 16. But the Court did not give succour to such contention and rejected the same by observing –

“It was Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes who said “The life law is not logic but experience….” Legislative decisions of the kind need to be shown due deference by the judicial institution. Courts cannot run a race of opinions with other organs of the State, separation of powers being one of the basic features of our Constitution vide Indira Nehru Gandhi v. Shri Raj Narain, AIR 1975 SC 2299.”

It was further noted that the relevant Rules have been framed by the High Court in exercise of its quasi-legislative power as per the proviso to Article 309 read with Articles 233, 234 & 235 of the Constitution. Therefore, though it is a delegated legislation, still it enjoys presumption of constitutionality.

“A piece of subordinate legislation made by the delegate from the experience gained through the years cannot be struck down by a stroke of pen. An argument to the contrary runs counter to the constitutional jurisprudence of at least half a century,” it added.

Reasons for debarment order can't be stacked in 'Godown of the Government'

Speaking for the Bench, Justice Shripad pointed out a major lacuna in the debarment order. He highlighted that the order, which not only stripped the petitioner of his prospective judicial office but also disentitled him from all future government employment, is a 'non-speaking' one. The State Counsel argued that the reasons are though not mentioned in the order but the relevant file contains the same. However, the Court brushed off such contention.

Reliance was placed on the sempiternal observations made by Justice VR Krishna Iyer in Mohinder Singh Gill v. The Chief Election Commissioner (1977) wherein he held that when a statutory functionary makes an order based on certain grounds, its validity must be judged by the reasons so mentioned and cannot be supplemented by fresh reasons in the shape of affidavit or otherwise.

The judgment in Secretary, State of Karnataka v. Umadevi (2006) was also cited as authority to hold that reasons must stem from the very order itself so that for an onlooker it provides the opportunity to know why such an order is made. It is, the Court emphasized, a most legitimate expectation of the person who suffered such orders, more particularly when the right to stake claim for public employment is a facet of Article 16.

As a natural corollary, the Court said, the authority who makes an order in exercise of statutory power cannot say that the reasons are available in the file that is not indicated in the order itself. In the very words of the Court, such reasons cannot be “stacked in the godown of the government”.

Highly disproportionate punishment

The Additional Government Advocate appearing for the State contended that Rule 21 of the 2007 Rules authorises the Government inter alia to debar a candidate from future public employment. The Court, nevertheless, remarked that mere existence of a power does not justify exercise of the same trivially.

“The text obviously gives power, as already mentioned. What is the false statement or incorrect statement allegedly made by the candidate, remains to be a mystery wrapped in enigma… No special reasons are assigned to justify a permanent embargo as if a heinous sin is committed by the candidate. After all, errors do occur in any human transaction,” it added.

Justice Shripad underlined that it is needed to be ascertained whether the petitioner did the alleged act with guilty mind or he committed a mistake simpliciter. In the opinion of the Court, the act of the petitioner did not fit into a misconduct with guilty mind and therefore, his case does not warrant the invocation of penal provisions.

“As a layman, what he has done is wrong simpliciter and therefore, he cannot be crushed by sledge hammer, when a mild pinch would do the rightful. There is also force in the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner that the impugned order debarring his client from Government service permanently is too harsh to be sustained. A harsh and disproportionate treatment meted out an erring citizen runs amuck of doctrine of proportionality,” the Court said.

Accordingly, the Court was of the considered view that the petitioner committed illegality by not following the extant Rules requiring submission of application through the employer. Hence, it deemed improper to order his appointment in the post of 'Civil Judge', notwithstanding his selection. At the same time, the permanent debarment order was quashed, giving liberty to the petitioner to take part in the future recruitments.

Case Title: Dibakar Patra v. State of Odisha & Anr.

Case No: W.P.(C) No. 14410 of 2017

Date of Judgment: June 17, 2025

Counsel for the Petitioner: Mr. P.K. Rath, Senior Advocate with M/s. A. Behera, S.K. Behera, P. Nayak, S. Das and S. Rath, Advocates

Counsel for the Respondents: Mr. S.B. Panda, Additional Government Advocate for the State; Mr. P.K. Mohanty, Senior Advocate with M/s. D.N. Mohapatra, (Smt.) J. Mohanty, Mr. P.K. Nayak, Mr. S.N. Dash, P.K. Pasayat and Mr. P. Mohanty, Advocates for the O.P. No. 2

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ori) 79

Click Here To Read/Download Order