Orissa High Court Reinstates Bhuban NAC Chairperson, Declares Removal Legally Unsustainable
The Orissa High Court has delivered a significant judgment, quashing the removal of Suvendu Kumar Sahoo as chairperson of the Bhuban Notified Area Council (NAC) in Dhenkanal district. In a ruling that underscores the importance of procedural fairness and evidentiary standards, the court declared the state government's action to be legally unsustainable, thereby reinstating Sahoo to his elected position.
Court's Detailed Ruling on Procedural and Evidentiary Grounds
Delivering the judgment on February 26, a single-judge bench presided over by Justice R K Pattanaik set aside both the initial notice issued on June 18, 2025, and the subsequent notification dated September 9, 2025. These documents, issued under Section 53 of the Odisha Municipal Act, 1950, by the director of municipal administration, had removed Sahoo from office with immediate effect.
Justice Pattanaik meticulously examined the case, noting that the record failed to disclose any material evidence establishing "wilful default or deliberate intent" on the part of the petitioner. The court emphasized that the inquiry report, which formed the basis of the allegations, had not been supplied to Sahoo during the proceedings, highlighting a critical lapse in due process.
Background of the Case and Allegations
Sahoo, who was elected to the position on March 30, 2022, moved the high court on September 15, 2025, challenging the legality of the proceedings initiated against him. The allegations leveled against him included:
- Non-constitution of ward committees in violation of Section 57-A of the Odisha Municipal Act, 1950.
- Irregularities in sanitation work and alleged excess labor payments.
- Execution of paver road projects without prior approval from the water resources department, purportedly breaching Rule 335 of the Odisha Municipal Rules, 1953.
Despite these accusations, the court found no substantial evidence to support claims of intentional misconduct.
Key Legal Principles Established by the Judgment
In his observations, Justice Pattanaik clarified that "mere negligence or irregularities... cannot be a ground enough for his removal under Section 53 of the Act," unless backed by a definite finding of wilful or deliberate misconduct. The judgment stated, "When the court finds that there have been irregularities alleged against the petitioner in absence of anything on record even remotely suggesting that it was a wilful default or deliberate intent... the irresistible conclusion of the court is that the impugned decision cannot be sustained."
Concluding that the action suffered from "legal infirmity," the court ruled, "As a necessary corollary, the impugned notice and notification are hereby quashed." This decision not only reinstates Sahoo but also sets a precedent for similar cases involving municipal governance and administrative actions in Odisha.
Implications for Municipal Administration in Odisha
This ruling reinforces the necessity for robust evidence and procedural adherence in cases of removal from elected offices. It serves as a reminder to administrative bodies that actions against public representatives must be grounded in clear proof of misconduct, rather than mere allegations or procedural oversights. The reinstatement of Sahoo underscores the judiciary's role in upholding democratic principles and ensuring fairness in local governance.
