“Discharge Without Inquiry or Notice Is Void ab Initio” – Orissa High Court Quashes Termination of Jail Warder for Alleged Suppression of Criminal Cases

“No Willful Suppression Proved – State Must Show Knowledge, Not Mere Existence of Case” – Orissa High Court, in a detailed and constitutionally grounded, set aside the termination of a Jail Warder on allegations of suppressing two criminal cases in his attestation form. Justice Aditya Kumar Mohapatra held that the discharge order, issued without notice or inquiry, violated Article 311(2) of the Constitution and fundamental principles of natural justice. The Court found that the petitioner had no knowledge of the alleged cases, that the cases had either concluded in his favour or did not involve him at all, and that no intentional or willful suppression had occurred. The Court observed, “The mandatory provision of Article 311(2) has not been complied with by the Opposite Parties,” and directed reinstatement with full service and financial benefits, treating the period of discharge as ‘on duty’.

The petitioner, Sri P. Rajesh Reddy, was selected and appointed to the post of Jail Warder in Daspalla Sub-Jail following a valid recruitment process initiated on 13 December 2022 for 403 vacancies. Before applying, he obtained a character certificate from the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Ganjam, dated 17 May 2023, which showed no adverse record. Pursuant to this, he was appointed and joined duty on 29 May 2023.

However, on 2 February 2024, the Senior Superintendent of Circle Jail, Berhampur issued an office order discharging the petitioner from service on the ground that he had suppressed material facts regarding his alleged involvement in two criminal cases – Chamakhandi P.S. Case Nos. 130 of 2022 and 48 of 2023 (initially wrongly cited as 84 of 2023). The discharge order was passed under Rule 59(2) and Rule 94(2) of the Odisha Model Jail Manual without prior notice or hearing. The petitioner’s representation seeking revocation of the order was rejected on 18 July 2024 by the D.G. of Prisons.

Challenging both the discharge order and the rejection of his representation, the petitioner filed the present writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution.

The first issue before the Court was whether the discharge was in violation of Article 311(2), which mandates that no government employee can be dismissed or removed without being given a reasonable opportunity of being heard. The Court found that the petitioner had not been issued a show-cause notice, nor had he been afforded any opportunity to respond to the allegations prior to his discharge. Justice Mohapatra stated, “It is not a case that the petitioner has been convicted in any criminal case… Thus, the impugned letter of discharge issued by the Opposite Party No.4 is not saved under the proviso to Article 311(2) of the Constitution of India.”

The Court reiterated that the procedure under Article 311(2) is not a formality but a substantive safeguard meant to protect public employees from arbitrary action. “The Opposite Parties should have followed the mandatory procedure of holding an inquiry and providing an opportunity of being heard to the Petitioner,” the Court noted.

The second issue was whether the petitioner had willfully suppressed criminal cases. On this, the Court examined the evidentiary record and concluded that the allegation was wholly unfounded. With respect to Chamakhandi P.S. Case No.130 of 2022, the Court noted that it had been withdrawn by the complainant and closed through a final report. In Chamakhandi P.S. Case No.48 of 2023, the petitioner’s name was explicitly dropped from the chargesheet on the ground that he was not involved in the incident. The Court noted, “The innocence of the petitioner itself is borne out from the police record.”

Further, the character certificate issued by the DSP (DIB), Ganjam – the authority responsible for verifying antecedents – found no adverse record. Referring to this, the Court stated, “When the DSP (DIB), Ganjam could not detect any criminal case in which the Petitioner is involved, obviously the Petitioner cannot be blamed that he was not aware of the fact.”

Addressing the legal standard for suppression, the Court explained that suppression must be shown to be intentional. “To hold a person guilty of suppression of fact, three ingredients are to be demonstrated; (i) the person guilty was mandatorily required to disclose such fact, (ii) such fact was within the knowledge of the person, and (iii) the person deliberately withholds such information,” the Court elaborated. On this test, the Court found that none of the conditions were satisfied.

In doing so, the Court relied heavily on the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in Avtar Singh v. Union of India, (2016) 8 SCC 471, particularly paragraph 38.11, which held that knowledge of the fact must be attributable to the individual before holding them guilty of suppression. The Court also referred to Ravindra Kumar v. State of U.P., (2024) 5 SCC 264, where the Supreme Court emphasized the need to consider the overall context, including character verification and socioeconomic background, before terminating service.

Justice Mohapatra observed that the case bore close similarity to Ravindra Kumar, noting, “The case of the Petitioner is somewhat similar to the one involved in the case of Ravindra Kumar.”

The Court held that the discharge was not only procedurally defective due to the absence of inquiry and opportunity to be heard but was also factually and legally untenable as no willful suppression had been established. Accordingly, the Court quashed the discharge order dated 2 February 2024 and the rejection letter dated 18 July 2024. The Court issued a writ of mandamus directing the State to reinstate the petitioner to his post with full service and financial benefits and directed that the period of discharge be treated as “on duty.” The entire compliance was ordered to be completed within two months.

Justice Mohapatra concluded, “The impugned order of discharge dated 02.02.2024 is unsustainable in law on several counts… Accordingly, this Court has no hesitation to quash the impugned discharge order… and the writ petition is allowed.”

Date of Decision: 26 May 2025