AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
No AI summary yet
Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.
Judgment
13 paragraphs · 276 words[1] Heard Mr. Anjan Prasad Sahu, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr. Niranjan Sanasam, learned Government Advocate appearing
for the respondents.
[2] When the matter is taken up today, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the present writ petition can be disposed of by directing the
respondents to consider and dispose of the representation submitted by the wife of the writ petitioner within a stipulated period. However, Mr.
Niranjan Sanasam, learned Government Advocate submitted that it will be more appropriate if the petitioner is directed to submit a fresh
representation to the competent authorities for considering the issue raised by the petitioner in the present writ petition. Taking into consideration, the
submission advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and as prayed for, the present writ petition is disposed of with the following directions:-
(a) the petitioner is directed to submit a fresh representation to the competent authorities in connection with the impugned order dated 28.09.2013
removing him from service within a period of 1(one) week from today along with a copy of this order;
(b) in the event of submissions of such representation by the petitioner, the competent authority shall consider and dispose of the said representation
within a period of 1(one) month from the date of receipt of a copy of the said fresh representation. It is made clear that the competent authorities shall
consider the said representation on its own merit and this Court has not given any finding in connection with the merit of the present case.
[3] A copy of this order be furnished to both the counsel appearing for the parties through their respective whatsapp/e-mail.