Somewhere someone sometimes listens; Govt. to fill up 50,000 vacancies under impact of ORISSA MATTERS

Subhas Chandra Pattanayak

The Government of the day in Orissa is undoubtedly a very irresponsible government which has been proved by it attempts to escape accountability in the last session of the Assembly. Its entire body is emitting putrefied odor because of blistering scams and scandals.

Yet, somewhere in its anti-people corridors, someone sometimes listens to good advice. Otherwise, a decision to fill up 50,000 vacancies by March this year could not have been made.

The meretricious concern of the government for the people starved of required service from various departments transformed into legal terms in a new law styled “The Orissa Right to Public Service Act 2012” had provoked us to warn that thereby the minified executive would only be harassed and victimized, pushing the State into a new phase of chaos.

We had, and only we had in the whole of media world and thinking community, discussed and pointed out why this new Law shall generate more problems than solution. The discussion was captioned “The Orissa Public Service Act, 2012 will demoralize minified Executive and create Chaos”. It was published on January 5, 2013 almost immediately after the launching of the Act with unprecedented fanfare.

The link below would lead to that discussion.

http://orissamatters.com/2013/01/05/the-orissa-public-services-act-2012-will-demoralize-the-minified-executive-and-create-chaos/

The fear of ORISSA MATTERS came true in cases like punishment of fine imposed by the District Collector on Tahsildar, Bolangir without regard to severe shortage of hand there. We had reacted to the rash action under the caption: Lowest Revenue Officer fined under Right to Public Service Act: But is it the Solution?

ORISSA MATTERS carried the exposure on October 11, 2014. Its link is:

http://orissamatters.com/2014/10/11/lowest-revenue-office-fined-under-right-to-public-service-act-but-is-it-the-solution/

This emphatic exposure of the mischief was seriously viewed in higher echelons of administration that decided to fill up at least 50,000 vacancies by the end of the current financial year.

We shall wait and watch to what extent the decision is carried out.

Advertisements

Forgery in Samaj: Former Editor Manorama Mohapatra Cannot Avoid Imprisonment

Subhas Chandra Pattanayak

Whoever commits forgery, with the intention to use the forged document for the purpose of cheating, “shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine”, mandates Section 468 of Indian Penal Code. In view of this, former member (administration) and Associate Editor of the Samaja Ms. Manorama Mohapatra is bound to be imprisoned with fine.

Her father, Radhanath Rath, who, as editor of the Samaja, had hoodwinked the entire nation to fetch the third highest civilian award – Padmabhusan, had tampered with Gopabandhu’s draft Will that he had taken dictation of, and subsequently had co-manufactured a forged avatar thereof to grab the Samaja. Now it is seen, Manorama has forged the signature of a Sub-Editor of the same paper to cheat him out of his salary dues. Victim of her forgery is Pitambar Mishra on whose debacle the details have been placed in the preceding posting.

UNSARANGI ON SAMAJ UNDER RR Mishra was exploited by Manorama’s father Radhanath Rath for around a decade since 1986. On grabbing the Samaja, Rath had become its de facto owner by transforming the same to a family domain in the guise of Servants of the People Society. If any first hand evidence is required, one may get it from notes of the newspaper’s legendary news-editor – also publisher for many years – the Gandhian in letter and spirit, late lamented Udaynath Sarangi published in his serial write-up, captioned Lauha Paradara Antarale (Behind the Iron Curtain). An excerpt from the first episode, boxed by its publisher ‘Sambad’ is inserted here for all Oriyas to peruse. Roughly translated into English, it reads, “Pt. Gopabandhu has gifted away his institute to the race (of Oriyas). It has acquired the present stature with the help and cooperation of the people of the land. Neither there is investment of a single pie in it from the property of any individual nor has any individual any share in it. Its stature is the result of collective endeavor. It is a national institute. Let the Samaja and the institute (its establishment and Satyabadi Press) be salvaged from the family grip (of Radhanath Rath) and restored as a national property, so that, that would be the most appropriate respect for and preservation of memories of Gopabandhu”.

After exploiting the Samaja as his private property since the death of his collaborator in the forgery of Gopabandhu’s Will under cover of the Servants of the People Society, Rath had most cunningly made his daughter Manorama a member thereof handing her over the reign of the paper. She was made the boss both in administrative and editorial sectors. She was member (Administration) and Associate Editor. The press was being managed and the paper was being edited under her control. She was representing the management in its real sense.

A living symbol of her father’s exploitation, Sub-Editor-cum-News Reporter Pitambar Mishra had raised a dispute before the Labor Laws Implementation Authorities seeking regularization of his services with due amount of wages to which he was entitled under the Wage Board Award for Working Journalists. Rath had recruited him as a News Reporter for Rs. 150/- only per month. After giving him an additional duty to work as a Sub-Editor too, he was paid Rs.250/- per month. No letter of appointment was given to him as per practice of Rath, though he was acting without rest from early morning to late in the night as a journalist in both the areas – as a Sub-Editor as well as a News Reporter. He was one of many such hands in the establishment of the Samaja in the regime of Rath, who was using maximum space of the paper to project himself as a kind and benevolent person! Towards the end of his life, members of SoPS dared to make their presence felt in management of funds of the paper and the iron curtain epitomized by Rath started to crack.

In that confusing situation, SoPS having started to disregard various steps of Rath, Pitambar apprehended that, unless he raises the necessary industrial dispute, his decade old service to the paper may get lost in the labyrinth of managerial chaos.

So, he moved the District Labor Officer to step in. The DLO issued a statutory notice to the management asking why it should not be enforced by Law to regularize the services of Pitambar Mishra.

The management got the notice on 6.9.1997 and the next day on 7.9.1997, the journalist was not allowed to enter into the Samaja premises. The GM orally informed him that his services were no further required.

The DLO entertained conversion of his dispute from a case for regularization of service to a case for reinstatement in service.

Dispute Referred to Labor Court

Consequently, the State Government in the Labor and Emplyment Department referred the matter to the Labor Court, Bhubaneswar for adjudication under Sub-Section (5) of Section 12 read with Clause (ci) of Sub-Section (1) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 vide order No. 15552/LE, dt. 31.12.1998. The term of reference was:

“Whether the termination of services of Sri Pitambar Mishra, Sub-Editor/News reporter by the management of “the Samaj” with effect from 7.9.97 is legal and or justified? If not, to what relief Sri Mishra is entitled?

The Court answered, “the termination of services of Sri Pitambar Mishra, Sub-Editor/News Reporter by the management of “The Samaj” with effect from 7.9.97 is neither legal nor justified”. He was entitled to the relief of reinstatement with back wages”, the Labor Court concluded.

The reference was bound to be answered like this, as the management clearly knew that they have acted absolutely illegal and unjustified in summarily terminating Sri Mishra’s services immediately after receiving the notice of his complaint and no Court would ever approve their action.

Heinous Design

The only way for them to escape was denial of employer-employee relationship with Mishra. For this purpose, they devised a fake agreement with a forged signature of Mishra depicting therein that the relationship between him and the Samaj “is that of Principal to Principal and not that of employer or employee”. And, challenged the maintainability of the reference on this ground.

The so-called agreement was shown to have been signed on the 8th day of June 1995 to stay alive for two years. It means, the said agreement was bound to expire on 7th day of June, 1997. If it was so, how was it that the workman was working, as admitted by the management, till 7th of September 1997? Management’s averments make it clear that, when he was orally informed on 7.9.1997 that his services were not required onwards, the General Manager had not known of the agreement. The said agreement was also not the management’s proof of non-existence of employer-employee relationship when the dispute was under conciliation. Interestingly, when the so-called agreement was dated 8.6.1995, letter No.52/GM/94 dated 28.4.1994 reveals that the workman had already executed that agreement ! How can an office order issued on 28.4.94 speak of a document created on 8.6.95 ? This impossibility became possible only because, none of these two documents is genuine. Both of them were manufactured to harass Journalist Pitambar Mishra. Both of them were backdated and in backdating them by different persons, the dates depicted in both of them had inadvertently been so different.

I am giving below photo copies of relevant portions of these two documents for a comparison.

52:GM:94manufactured agreement

The comparison makes it clear that there is a gap of 14 months between the office order and the agreement. If the the agreement was executed on 8.6.95, how could the office order be pregnant with the same agreement that is dated 28.4.94 ?

How could the order based on the agreement be issued 14 months before the signing of the agreement ?

Manufactured by Manorama

Obviously, none of them was in existence on the relevant days.

They were manufactured by Manorama Mohapatra after the case was registered as Industrial Dispute No.9 of 1999 and proceeded in the Labor Court to the disadvantage of the management. And under the impact of the consequential shenanigans, attempts were made to create the said two backdated documents by two authorities of the management, such as the order dated 28.4.94 by one R.C.Mishra and the agreement dated 8.6.95 by Manorama Mohapatra. Due to lack of coordination in the flow of mala fide intension to teach a lesson to the workman who dared to drag them to the labor Court, the dates of the documents manufactured at their respective cabins became so drastically different.

When the document created by R.C.Mishra on the letterhead of the Samaja on 28.4.94 was meant to deny the workman confirmation in the post of Sub-Editor, the agreement manufactured by Manorama Mohapatra on 8.6.95 was, besides being an instance of use of Indian Stamp Papers for illegal purpose, carried forged signature of the affected workman.

Gene of forgery

Manorama Mohapatra, daughter of Radhanath Rath, who, as shown earlier in these pages, had created a forged avatar of Gopabandhu’s Will to occupy the Samaj, had become a member of SoPS by way of  nepotism and had become Member in charge of administration as well as the de facto Editor of the Samaja under the designation of Associate Editor. She was formerly a class-I officer in College Branch of Orissa Education Service, a Chief Executive of Orissa’s Academy of Letters. Yet, just to cause a poor and low paid employee debarred from getting his due position and wages, she created, sans any qualms, as if she inherits the gene of forgery, the signature of Pitambar Mishra on the said manufactured agreement typed on Indian Stamp Paper.

Disputed signature found forged

From the picture posted above, it is clear that the first attempt having failed, the forgery was done on the second attempt.

But very apt is a verse of ancient Oriya wisdom that says, “Papa Karuthibu Andhara Ghare, Bihi Lekhuthiba Tala Patare” , meaning, even if a sin is perpetrated inside a dark room, God Almighty records it in tamperproof letters like the Oriya people write on palm leafs. Precisely it says, “sin cannot be kept hidden”.

And, science also agrees. Howsoever cleaver be the criminal, he or she leaves behind clues that expose the crime along with its perpetrator, say the criminologists.

The crime of Manorama Mohapatra that she committed by forging the signature of Journalist Pitambar Mishra has been exposed by science.

Let us look again at the above picture.

It is the end portion of the manufactured agreement with the forged signature of Pitambar Mishra. It shows, the first attempt to forge his signature having failed, that has been repeatedly struck-through and then, below that struck-through signature, the signature of Pitambar Mishra has been penned. We shall later see how this signature is forged. But, at the moment, we shall peruse the photo copy of the authentication part of the agreement in question.

Collective Crime

When Pitambar Mishra is shown to have signed for and on behalf of the News Representative constituting the second part of the agreement, Manorama Mohapatra has signed for and on behalf of the Samaj constituting the first part thereof.

Manorama’s then known blue-eyed-boy Brajakishore Das, sub-editor, Samaj, Cuttack has signed as witness No.2 and a designation-less ineligible signature is attributed to witness No.1.

Who took the dictation of the agreement, from whom, where and when; and who typed the agreement was a must to have been written on the body of the agreement typed as it is on Indian Stamp Paper. But this is conspicuous by its absence. So, it is clear that, it is Ms. Manorama Mohapatra who has prepared the agreement on the Stamp Paper and forged Pitambar Mishra’s signature thereon to derail the Industrial Dispute 9/1999 in the Labor Court in order to debar Sri Mishra from getting his position and wages. The two witnesses taken into the scanner, it is a collective crime.

Proof of Forgery

Now let us see, how the signature claimed by Manorama to be of Pitambar Mishra on the body of the manufactured agreement is a forged signature.

When the State Government referred Mishra’s dispute to Labor Court, Bhubaneswar for adjudication, the management of Samaj questioned the maintainability of the dispute by denying employer-employee relationship between them and Mishra. And, in support of their contention, they produced the agreement in question that at Para 8 in page 3 says, “The relationship between the news representative (Pitambar Mishra) and the Samaj is that of Principal to Principal and not that of an employer or employee”.

Pitambar was shocked. He vehemently protested against production of an agreement, which he never had made and signed.

The labor Court did a mistake.

Instead of asking the management to prove that Mishra’s signature was genuine, it  asked the poor, unpaid and jobless workman to prove that his signature was forged !

And, he was asked to deposit a heavy sum of money towards cost of handwriting examination, which was beyond the capability of Mishra to deposit.

So his case was dismissed and the reference was answered in favor of the management.

When the Orissa High Court went through the records, it quashed the order of the Labor Court, directing it to resume the case while not intervening with the Labor Court direction to the workman on cost of his signature examination in the State Handwriting Bureau. Mishra with much difficulty could be able to deposit the cost and the Labor Court sent his disputed signature along with 7 sets of specimen signatures of Pitambar Mishra obtained on seven sheets of paper by him in presence of and witnessed by the Advocate for the management. Mishra’s signature on his application to Chairman, Lok Sevak Mandal (management) dated 12.11.92 as well as his signature on his application to the same authority on 4.5.94, which were admitted by the management to be genuine signatures of Mishra received by them, were also sent as admitted signatures of the workman to the State Handwriting Bureau in Crime Investigation Department (CID), Crime Branch (CB) of Orissa Police, Rasulgarh, Bhubaneswar, vide letter No.1615/LC dt. 25.9.2010. The specimen signatures taken on 7 sheets were marked S-1, S-2, S-3, S-4, S-5, S-6 and S-7, where as the signature on his application dated 12.11.92 was marked S-8 and the one on his application dated 4.5.94 was marked S-9. The disputed signature on agreement dated 8.6.95 was marked X-1. The ‘Government Examiner of Questioned Documents’ in the HWB was asked to examine and tell “whether the person who wrote S-1 to S-9, also wrote the signature marked X-1”.

On careful and thorough examination of “the documents in original from all angles of handwriting identification with the help of scientific aids under suitable condition”, the Examiner reported that, “Both the sets of signatures (Specimen and admitted signatures marked S-1 to S-9 and the disputed signature Marked X-1) differ in their general writing habit such as skill, speed, movement, line quality, size and proportion of letters etc” and declared that “The disputed signature marked X-1 contain hesitation, pen stop at unnatural places, slow drawn movement, poor line quality etc, which are the symptoms of forgery found present in the disputed signature”. Here below is the photo copy of the conclusive observation of the Examiner of Questioned Documents.

CONCLUSIVE PART

Opinion of the Handwriting Bureau Authority that establishes that Pitambar Mishra’s signature was forged on the body of the agreement dated 8.6.1995, which was manufactured by Ms. Manorama Mohapatra for and on behalf of the management, is also given below:

opinion of handwriting bureau

Raising fictitious grounds to delay the proceedings in the Labor Court, the management had filed a petition there, praying for sending another signature for examination. That was rightly rejected, in view of the fact that the disputed signature was proved as forged signature on scientific examination by the State Handwriting Bureau and the examiner, as C.W.1, had already been cross examined by the management wherein nothing was made out to show any defect in the examination of the signature and the report of HWB.

The management had then wanted to recall the Handwriting expert for fresh cross examination. But the management withdrew the same petition pleading pendency of a case it had preferred in the High Court on the same subject. The said case of the management failed in the the High Court, with the Judge concluding that, in rejecting the petition of the Samaj for sending the signature again to the Handwriting Expert the labor Court had neither committed any irregularity nor illegality.

Thus, it is established that, the Samaj management has forged the signature of Pitambar Mishra on the body of a manufactured agreement in order to deny him his legitimate position and wages by derailing the judicial process.

Criminal Negligence by Police

Sri Mishra filed FIR in the Cantonment Police Station on 20.7.2011 seeking action against the forgery. As he was not furnished with a copy thereof, he resubmitted the FIR to Deputy Commissioner of Police, Cuttack, by Speed post on 25.7.2011. Tracking records shows that the same was delivered to the DCP on 26.7.2011.

But the Police is yet to come out of its cocoon of criminal negligence. If not, law shall force it to act.

Finally, Jail

Then what would happen to Manorama Mahapatra? Unless Pitambar Mishra, her victim, shows her mercy, she cannot avoid imprisonment in view of the provision of IPC quoted at the beginning. So also the two fellows who have authenticated the forged signature as genuine by signing as witnesses. And, another fellow, under whose instigation the forgery is understood to have been committed and who had, as the lone management witness, deposed under oath that the questioned signature was the genuine signature of Pitambar Mishra, will also be prosecuted and jailed, because the signature he had shown as genuine signature of Pitambar Mishra, has been proved to be forged on the basis of scientific examination in the Handwriting Bureau. That fellow is Chaudhury Sangram Keshari Mishra, whom the Samaj management  has, for his litigant mischief and anti-labor habit, rewarded with unending pay packages from the funds that the workmen so laboriously generate for the newspaper. Under wrong and mischivious advice of such fellows, the iconic newspaper of Orissa, co-founded by the immortal humanitarian leader Utkalmani Pandit Gopabandhu Das, has become a scheming exploiter of workers and has generated scores of Industrial disputes, where it has never won, but always failed.

Daily Samaj in hands of Devils: Sub-Editor’s Signature Forged to Derail Labor Adjudication; High Court Used to Keep Him Starved

Subhas Chandra Pattanayak

I am shocked to see that the Orissa High Court is used by illegal occupiers of the daily Samaj to keep a working journalist starved, even though the competent Labor Court had awarded him the relief of reinstatement with full back wages and the High Court had also ruled that the award was proper and justified.

The matter may be viewed as a classic instance of abortion of rule of law in the citadel of law, when lawyers fail to apprise the Court of the real position of law on one part, and on the other, pursue a design to hoodwink the court with misleading legal jargons and junks.

It would be helpful to have the minimum introduction on the case of the concerned journalist – Sub-Editor-cum-Reporter of the Samaj – Pitamber Mishra, now above 72 years.

Here below is a chronology-
1. He was subjected to constant unfair labor practice since 1986;
2. He was summarily dismissed as he wanted legitimate wages in 1997;
3. Two backdated documents were manufactured, one an agreement with his forged signature to derail his dispute in the Labor Court when the State Government sent his case for adjudication in 1998;
4. He challenged the manufactured agreement and was made to cough up a heavy sum of money for examination of his signature on the same;
5. The ‘Examiner of Questioned Documents’ in the Handwriting Bureau, Crime Branch, Orissa was asked by the Labor Court to examine the disputed signature vide letter No. 1615/LC stated 25.9.2010;
6. The Examiner opined that the disputed signature was not the signature of Pitambar Mishra;
7. Thus the forgery committed by the management established, the Labor Court declared the dismissal illegal and unjustified and warded the relief of reinstatement in service with full back wages with effect from the date of dismissal; but compounded his dues in terms of money in lieu of reinstatement with full back wages as he had crossed the superannuating age during pendency of the case on 21,2,2013;
8. The management challenged the award in the Orissa High Court in a Writ Petition, which was rejected on hearing on 30.4.2014 with the conclusion that the Labor Court award was proper and justified;
9. Instead of implementing the Labor Court award as improved by the High Court, the management has used the High Court to keep the journalist in starvation taking advantage of Law that provides for a Writ Appeal and the suffering journalist’s inability to wake up the judicial conscience.

The poor man is now 72+ and is under slow starvation as the High Court has allowed the management the luxury of misusing the forums of law to torture the workman.

Heritage of Crime

Orissa’s iconic newspaper -The Samaja – co-founded by Utkalmani Pt. Gopabandhu Das, is being published under illegitimate ownership, as proved in these pages.

Radhanath Rath – a low paid servant of Gopabandhu, who could bag a Padmabhusan over and above legislative and ministerial berths as well as Lingaraj Mishra, a, “easygoing” protege of Gopabandhu, who could also occupy ministerial positions due to the media power of the Samaja, had tampered with and finally forged a will of Gopabandhu to hijack the newspaper, which has already been shown in these pages with relevant documents.

But the conduct of crime seen in these two fellows did not end in their death in the context of the newspaper. It seems, they have handed over a heritage of crime to their successors in the Samaja.

In these pages I have shown how the funds of the paper are being looted through forged documents. Now I will show, how Radhanath Rath’s daughter Ms. Manorama Mahapatra, a retired higher education teacher, who succeeded her father as Associate Editor – cum – Member (administration) of the establishment, forged the signature of the above mentioned sub-editor-cum-news reporter to deny him his legitimate position and salaries.

Calculated Exploitation

The Samaja was in need of a sub-editor and the management recruited Pitambar Mishra for the post in 1986.

But, he was neither given written order of appointment nor due salary.

Accounts section of the Samaja paid him only Rs.250/- at the end of the month and advised him to stay content with this amount till regularization of his appointment or enhancement of the amount of ad hoc pay, whichever would be earlier.

Formal appointment letter would be issued to him when he earns a regular status, he was told.

He was made to understand that Radhanath Rath was the SARBESARBA (all-in-one) in the Samaja system and he must not dare to irritate him with any demand for appointment letter and salary in time scale.

When Rath will be satisfied with his work, everything would be normal and there shall be regular appointment with salary as per Wage Board, he was told.

The Samaja being the highest circulated daily of the State and, as Rath, equipped with media power, was making the government dance to his tune, Pitamber could not dare to do anything but acquiescing into the situation with a hope for regularization of his employment, as to him, such a ‘big personality’ like Rath could not be an exploiter.

But, Rath was an exploiter in real sense. He asked him to report Cuttack City along with his desk job without any hike in the ad hoc pay even, in a way of calculated exploitation.

Footprints of Exploitation

After rendering service for five years in both the field and desk sectors, Pitambar submitted a representation to management in 1989 for confirmation either in the post of Sub-Editor or in the post of Reporter with regular salary. The management ignored his representation for around two years and simply increased the amount of his ad hoc pay to Rs.600/- per month in 1991. He insisted that he should be regularized in service with salary as per Wage Board.

His representation was finally placed before the executive body of Servants of the People Society, which has illegally occupied the paper, on 22.3.1994. The minutes of that meeting records, “The Executive Secretary gave applications of Upendra, retired from Advertisement Section, P.C.Sarkar, Correspondent and Pitamber Mishra, Sub-Editor for comments”. It made it clear that Mishra was mainly the Sub-Editor. But, instead of confirming him, the management only enhanced his ad hoc salary to Rs.780/- in 1994. His representation for confirmation continued to be ignored.

Dispute before Labor Authorites

Severely injured both professionally and financially, as the management was not paying any heed to his grievances, Pitamber moved the labor law implementation machinery for intervention. The District Labor Officer, Cuttack, issued notice to the management on 25.8.1997 asking for their views on Sri Mishra’s demand for regularization of employment with retrospective effect along with all consequential benefits.

Illegal Termination

Mishra’s dispute before the labor authorities enraged the management to such ferocity that they terminated his service immediately on receiving the labor officer’s notice. In the history of the Samaja under illegal occupiers, no employee has ever been tolerated after raising a dispute before the labor authorities against harassment. So, Mishra was prevented from entering into the campus of the Samaja on 7,9,1997 with the gate keeper informing him that his services had been terminated. As he wanted the termination order, the general manager came to the gate and told him that his services were no more required. Pitambar’s request for the written order, if any, to that effect, was also turned down orally by the GM.

The affected workman moved the DLO for intervention and then,legally, his pending dispute for confirmation in service metamorphosed to an Industrial Dispute over illegal termination.

Reference to Labor Court

The Samaja management remained recalcitrant and the case landed in the Labor Court vide Order No.15552/LE dated 31.12.1998 of the State Government with the following term of reference:

“Whether the termination of services of Sri Pitambar Mishra Sub-Editor/News Reporter by the management of “The Samaj” with effect from 7.9.97 is legal and/or justified? If not, to what relief Sri Mishra is entitled?”

Manufactured agreement
with forged Signature

When the Labor Court registered the Industrial Dispute and initiated adjudication, the management of Samaja challenged the maintainability thereof by producing an agreement to show that there was no employer-employee relationship between it and Sri Mishra. The harassed journalist, to his horror found that not only the agreement was manufactured to suit the nefarious motive of the management, but also the signature purported to be his on the body of the manufactured agreement was also manufactured. He vehemently objected to depiction of a forged signature as his on the forged agreement. The management claimed that signature of the workman was genuine.

Instead of asking the management to establish genuineness of the signature disowned by the workman, the Labor Court asked the abysmally low-paid workman to deposit a very heavy amount of money as cost of handwriting examination, which was bend the capacity of the workman to arrange. As he failed to attend the Court with the money he was asked to deposit, the said court answered the reference in favor of the management, in the line the management had wanted.

The blatantly disadvantaged journalist moved the High Court of Orissa seeking quashing of the rash order of the Labor court. The High Court quashed the order and directed the Labor Court Presiding Officer to recall his order and to send the disputed signature of Mishra along with his specimen signatures to the State Handwriting Bureau for opinion of the handwriting examiner on genuineness or not of the signature on the questioned agreement.

Accordingly the award was recalled by the Labor Court. The poor workman coughed up the heavy amount of cost of signature examination. The Judge of the Labor Court collected his specimen signatures in presence of the lawyer of the management and sent the same with the disputed signature to the Examiner of Disputed Documents, CID,CB,HWB, Orissa, for examination. The handwriting expert found that the signature on the agreement paper was at all of Pitamber Mishra. His report was submitted by the S.P., CID, CB, HWB under cover of letter No. DP 26-19/530/HWB dt. 25.6.2011.

As the signature of Sri Mishra on the agreement filed by management was found to be forged, the agreement was rejected by the Labor Court and employer-employee relationship was established and termination of his services was determined to be illegal and unjustified in the award of the Labor Court.

Award of the Labor Court

The Labor Court, in its award dated 21.3.2013, answered the questions raised under the reference in the the following term: “That the termination of services of Sri Pitambar Mishra, Sub-Editor/News Reporter by the management “The Samaj” with effect from 7.9.97 is neither legal or justified”.

“Regarding the relief is concerned”, the Labor Court said, “the workman has examined himself as W.W.1 on 4.6.2001 and in his evidence, he has deposed that his age is 58 years. So considering the above version and admission of the workman, he is now about 70 years old. Therefore, it is not wise to direct the management for reinstatement of the workman in service. But at the same time, the workman had rendered service under the management for about 11 years and in the meantime, the case is lingering from the year 1999, i.e. for about 14 years. So considering the age, status and his tenure in duties, I am of the considered view that instead of giving direction for reinstatement in service with back wages, a lump sum amount of Rs.2,50,ooo/- as compensation will meet the end of justice in the facts and circumstances of this case”.

Thus saying, the Labor Court ordered that “The workman is entitled to get a lump sum amount of Rs.2,50,000/- only as compensation in lieu of reinstatement in service with back wages. The management is directed to implement this Award within a period of two months from the date of its publication, failing, the amount shall carry interest at the rate of 10% (ten per cent) per annum till its realization”.

Thus this is a clear, unambiguous and emphatic Award of reinstatement in service with full back wages.

High Court did not see Sec 17B of I.D.Act

The illegal occupiers of the Samaja preferred a Writ Petition in the Orissa High Court against this Award, which was registered as W.P.(C) N0.14183 of 2013.

The Writ Petition should have been rejected, had the High Court looked at Section 17 B of the Industrial Disputes Act.

I quote Sec.17 B, captioned as, “Payment of full wages to workman pending proceedings in higher Courts” where it is written,

“Where in any case, a Labour Court, Tribunal or National Tribunal by its award directs reinstatement of any workman and the employer prefers any proceedings against such award in a High Court or the Supreme Court, the employer shall be to pay such workman , during the period of pendency of such proceedings in the High Court or the Supreme Court , full wages last drawn by him , inclusive of any maintenance allowance admissible to him under any rule, if the workman had not been employed in any establishment during such period and an affidavit by such workman had been filed to that effect in such Court”.

When the Writ Petition was filed against the Award of the Labor Court and the Labor Court had given the Award of reinstatement with full back wages, commuting the same to Rs.2,50,000/- in lieu thereof in view of the journalist having crossed the superannuation age in course of the case pending before it for long 14 years, it should have been proper for the High Court to refuse to entertain the management’s case in absence of proof of payment of the entire amount awarded by the Labor Court, specifically as it was clear that the 70+ old man was neither fit for work nor permissible to work anywhere. Yet, the Court reduced the commuted amount of the workman’s back wages by Rs.30,000/- to Rs.2,20,000/-, though the Judge was clear in saying, “On consideration of the materials on record, I am of the view that there is no infirmity in the findings of the the Presiding Officer, Labor Court that the termination of the workman was neither legal nor justified”.

The High Court should not have reduced the awarded amount in view of the fact that the said amount was determined in lieu of full back wages of the workman with effect from his de jure reinstatement in service on 7.9.1997. The labor Court had clearly held that termination of service of Sri Mishra was neither legal nor justified. Hence reinstatement with full back wages was awarded.

Though the workman was de jure reinstated in service with effect from 7.9.1997,  he was not to join his postde facto on reinstatement, because, by that date, his serving age had been lost during pendency of the industrial dispute. The Labor Court, in that special circumstances had commuted the back wages he was entitled to on de jure reinstatement. This was a minimum amount of wages. If the High Court was to entertain the management’s writ application, it should have asked the management to pay the workman his dues as determined by the Labor Court before hearing the same. Instead, it heard the case and reduced the awarded amount to drastic disadvantage of the workman.

Habitual Litigant

The management is a habitual litigant determined to harass the workman. When the Labor Court was hearing the case, and it was established through examination by the Handwriting Bureau that the management had forged the signature of the workman on a disputed agreement, tallying the disputed signature of the workman with his many specimen signatures collected by the judge of the labor Court in the presence of and witnessed by the management’s legal representative, the management had filed a petition on 9.11.2011 to send another signature of the workman again to the Handwriting Bureau. The labor Court had rejected that petition on 20.12.2011. Against this order, the management rushed a writ petition in the High Court, even as it made a fresh plea before the Labor Court on 18.1.2012 to recall the C.W.1 (the signature examiner) for a fresh cross examination. As its writ application got admitted in the High Court, vide  W.P. (C) No.4540 of 2012, the management withdrew its petition in the Labor Court on 7.3.2012.

The High Court found that the disputed signature has been proved as a forged signature through examination by the handwriting expert on being referred to by the Labor Court. The Examiner has tallied the same with admitted old signatures as well as with specimen signatures collected by the judge of the Labor Court in presence of and witnessed by the legal representative of the management. The Examiner has also deposed and been cross examined in the court as C.W.1 and the details of the examination with 13 sheets of documents, 17 sheets of photo enlargement, Negative containing 17 exposures and two sheets of statement of reason along with the scientific opinion have been filed in the Labor Court and examined by the management, and it had not found any defect therein. Against this backdrop, the High Court had rejected on 12.3.2013 the W.P. (C) No.4540 of 2012 instituted by the management with the observation that,  “The Court does not find any irregularity or illegality in the impugned order passed by the Labor court”.

Fresh Attempt to Kill the Spirit of the I.D.Act

Despite the verdicts of the High Court, the recalcitrant management of the newspaper has not yet paid the dues of the Sub-Editor. It has challenged the verdict in a Writ Appeal, on the ground that signature of the workman on the body of his ‘Statement of Claim’ was not sent to the handwriting expert along with his admitted signatures.

So, the Writ Appeal – WA No.201 of 2014 – filed by the management against the above High Court order is nothing but a nasty attempt to keep the tortured journalist denied of his dues.

Sri Mishra is more than 72 years.

His legitimate dues should not be denied to him in guise of the Writ Appeal.

Had the Court paid attention to Sec.17 B of the I.D.Act, the above said writ case could not have been entertained without payment of the full wages (in this peculiar situation the entire amount awarded by the Labor Court) by the management to him and the present Writ Appeal should also have been rejected because of non- payment of the awarded amount to Mishra under the same section.

The spirit of Sec.17 B of the I.D.Act must not be killed in the High Court under evil design of a management that had no qualms in forging the signature of the workman to deny him his dues.

In my next posting on the Samaja devilry, I will discuss its forgery with relevant documents.

Intimidated Samaja Staff sign on Plain Papers: State is Silent!

Subhas Chandra Pattanayak

THE SAMAJA is Orissa’s iconic newspaper and belongs to people of Orissa. It was created by five most beloved leaders of the State – famous as Panchasakha of Satyavadi – for imparting political education to the people fighting for reconstruction of their divided motherland and emancipation. Utkalmani Pandit Gopabandhu Das was its co-founder and was its forefront editor.

As we have shown earlier, a low-paid shrewd servant of Gopabandhu – Radhanath Rath and an associate of the great leader, whom, despite his mental dullness he had sponsored to Politics – Lingaraj Mishra – had betrayed Gopabandhu and had forged his Will after the original was probated and discarding the probated Will, had used the forged one in all offices to grab the Samaja under cover of Servants of the People Society.

This Society, after death of these two miscreants, has seized the Samaja in its entirety and has been looting its revenue.

Like vultures fight amongst themselves over a carcass, members of this Society are in fight against each other to grab whatever benefit they can and they have reduced the Samaja premises to their internecine battle ground.

Lest the workers wake up against this, they have resorted to blatant unfair practices, have subjected the Union leaders to concocted cases, have illegally dismissed active members of the Union, pushed employees into enforced idleness and as per a press note issued by the Union, have taken signatures of some employees in plain papers by intimidating them. This is happening, because, the State Government never act against illegalities of SoPS.

The press note is in Oriya script and as this posting is addressed to people of Orissa, we give below the same for their perusal.

PN 1PN 2PN 3PN 4

We have got Gopabandhu’s Signed and Probated Will: Forgery by Radhanath Rath and Lingaraj Mishra established; State must salvage the Samaja from SoPS

Subhas Chandra Pattanayak
We had been trying to find the proof of forgery committed by Radhanath Rath and Lingaraj Mishra to grab the Samaja under cover of the Servants of the People Society (SoPS) and how this society has no legitimacy to keep the Samaja under its occupation.

Finally we have got the proof.

In various articles, specifically the one captioned ‘Samaja in Maze of Forgery’  we had juxtaposed Pandit Nilakantha Das’ eye witness accounts with Prof. Sreeram Chandra Dash’s hearsay narration on writing of Gopabamdhu’s Will.

When, according to Pt. Nilakantha, the Will was written by Radhanath Rath to dictation of Gopabandhu, according to the narration of Prof. Dash – admittedly guided by Radhanath Rath, who had refused Prof. Nityananda Satapathy the access to Gopabandhu’s records under his disposal – Lingaraj Mishra had taken the dictation.

This difference was putting a stymie on my conclusion. This stymie is now removed as we have got, after year long pursuit, the original Will of Gopabandhu signed by him and duly probated.

This original Will makes it clear that Lingaraj Mishra, as claimed by Prof. Dash, had written the Will on which Gopabandhu had put his signature. But there is half truth in Prof. Dash’s narration. On juxtaposing Pt. Nilakantha and Prof. Dash together with the body of Gopabandhu’s signed Will, I am sure that Rath had taken dictation of the draft, from which Lingaraj had made the fair copy and Gopabandhu had signed that fair copy even with expansion of his instructions.

I will elaborate.

The draft dictated by Gopabandhu to his employee Radhanath Rath had ended in 8 Paragraphs.

This 8th paragraph was a single-sentenced declaratory paragraph.

It read, “Babu Jagabandhu Singh, Babu Banamali Das, Pandit Nilakantha Das, Babu Harihar Das and Babu Lingaraj Mishra are appointed hereby as executors of this Will”. Below this sentence, Gopabandhu had put his signature.

But thereafter, it occurred to him that he should make some addition, specifically in favor of his second daughter and her children.

So, he asked Lingaraj to write down his extra instructions on the very same fair copy and thus, to his dictation, Lingaraj had written down rest of the Will. In doing so he had tried to insert the dictation between the last line of Para 8 and the signature of Gopabandhu.
But the insertion could not be compressed into the available space between Para 8 and Gopabandhu’s signature.

Will_Original_Para 8
It had begun as a continuation to Para 8, but had to jump the signature due to want of space.

So, atop the signature, one finds the words:
“The executors are authorized to make cash contribution of rupees five hundred for purchase of land for my second daughter Kirtimayee and the” and beneath the signature, the rest that reads: “Estate shall bear all the educational expenses of this poor second daughter’s children”.

And, then we find Para 9 that Gopabandhu had dictated to Lingaraj on body of the fair copy of the WILL, as otherwise he could not have signed below Para 9 also.

This is why, even though up to Para 8 in the original draft, Gopabandhu had given the dictation to Radhanath Rath, in view of the fair copy produced by Lingaraj from the draft as given to him by Radhanath, and writing of the last portion in addition thereto as dictated to him by Gopabandhu, it is generally accepted that Lingaraj Mishra had written the WILL to dictation of Gopabandhu.

As I have already revealed earlier, Radhanath Rath had shrewdly inserted a sentence in Para 6 for his own benefit before handing over the draft to Lingaraj for fair copy thereof for Gopabandhu’s signature. The sentence was a mismatch and interpolation; but the same had gone into the fair copy by the “easygoing” Lingaraj and had escaped attention of Gopabandhu as he was unable to keep his composure intact under pangs of sharply approaching death. In his letter to Lala Lajpat Rai on 23.12.1927, Gopabandhu had described Lingaraj as a man who was “a bit of easygoing nature” and had “not much initiative and imagination”. Radhanth had taken advantage of this nature of Lingaraj and after interpolating the original draft with his self-centric sentence: “I had a mind to take Babu Radhanath Rath as my assistant under the Servants of the People Society, shortly”, had succeeded in getting the same carried in the fair copy of the Will prepared by Lingaraj. Lest the interpolation gets exposed, he kept draft he had taken dictation of  hidden from public gaze and refused Prof. Satapathy access thereto.

Rath, however, had preserved his handwritten draft under his personal custody; because his son Prof. Nilakantha Rath, as admitted in his publication ‘Dasa Apanenka Chithipatra’ had seen the same in his possession, before it went “missing”.

However, though this interpolated self-centric sentence in Para 6 was intact in the probated Will, both of them – Radhanath Rath and Lingaraj Mishra – found that Para 7 thereof would be disadvantageous for them to grab the Samaja.

Therefore, a new draft was made in the hand of Lingaraj amending the Para 7 to suit their nefarious purpose.

This draft got typed on which an affidavit was made before the Sheristadar of the District Court, Cuttack showing the same as true copy of Gopabandhu’s Will.

As I have already shown, Rath was in constant fear that the said affidavit may someday face a challenge. So, he tried to get a ‘Certified True Copy’ of the probated copy of the Will from the District Judge Office, Cuttack, from the text thereof recorded in the register of probate. His purpose was to generate a copy with the language of the forged Will he and Mishra had created with the help of the Sheristadar, to cheat the State and the public. This was to be done by tampering with the text of the probated Will at the typing stage through a gained over typist. And, the gained over typist had done the typing accordingly. But the evil design was foiled when the the officer, who compared the typed copy with the Register before certification, spotted the mischief.

The typist was forced to apply white paint on the altered text, which was exactly the text of the forged Will and to retype thereon the correct text of the original Will. This is its photocopy:-

WILL_Probated_aborted attempt to alter the text copy
Though, thus, this attempt to tamper with the original text of the Will failed, the very endeavor to tamper with the text establishes the criminality of Rath as well as SoPS that has never tried to obtain the ‘Certified True Copy’ of the Will from the office of probate or the District Judge Office where the original Will is preserved, but has all along used the forged Will created by Radhanath Rath and Lingaraj Mishra through the Sheristadar of the District Judge, Cuttack.

It is now the responsibility of the State Government to book the SoPS for the offense of using a forged Will of Gopabandhu to occupy the Samaja, the iconic newspaper of Orissa and for having embezzled hundreds of crores of rupees of the Samaja without any authority and legitimacy.

Radhanath Rath and Lingaraj Mishra need be subjected to posthumous prosecution for the crime they have committed.

The State must take over the paper and offer it to its employees to manage it, because it is the workers who have given their labor and life to give the paper its life for 94 years and to give it the shape, stature and strength to enter into 95th year of its publication.

SoPS in offense against Utkalmani: Orissa digests, as a semiOriya rules the State

Subhas Chandra Pattanayak

Before Gandhiji was killed, his killer Nathuram Godse had come to him, had said “Pranam” and had pumped in the bullets to his heart in cold blood.

The word “Pranam” used by Dipak Malavya as the title of a signed editorial in the front page of the Samaja of today reminds me of that gory crime.

Malavya has projected himself as executive secretary, ‘Samaja’ board of management.

‘Samaja’ board of management is contrived and promulgated by Servants of the People Society (SoPS) of which Utkalmani Pt. Gopabandhu Das was the Vice-President before he was pushed into death in absence of timely treatment because of treachery of his servant Radhanath Rath, has illegally occupied the paper by using a forged will, which has been exposed in orissamatters.com. Rath had, in nexus with Lingaraj Mishra, prepared the forged will to grab the Samaja under cover of SoPS. And, that forgery had helped them both bag editorship of the paper and political positions like ministers.

After this reporter exposed the felony, the employees of Samaja were deeply worried over legitimacy of their employers. The shroud of doubts over legitimacy of SoPS as their employer was needed to be removed. So the Union of the employees asked the SoPS to clarify on the issue of the forged will of Gopabandhu. SoPS did not dare to answer. Repressive step were taken against union leadership to cause so much panic in the staff and to keep them intimidated that the State labor Laws implementation authorities are now flooded with industrial disputes.

Alert citizens, admirers of Pandit Gopabandhu, journalists who pride over their pursuit have formed a collective body styled Save-the-Samaja-Forum that has moved the Registrar of Newspapers for India (RNI) to take action against SoPS for having illegally occupied the icon paper of Orissa. When the RNI was conducting an inquiry through the ADM of Cuttack to find out the truth, Chief Minister Naveen Patnaik’s office forced the said officer to drop the inquiry midway and send a report to RNI supporting the SoPS claim. It has lead to W.P.(C) No is 11286 of 2014 and SoPS has not yet dared to counter the allegations.

Taking possession of Samaja by using a forged will of Gopabandhu, the SoPS has forced his unique Jatiya Vana Vidyalaya into starvation death and had raped and ravished all that values Gopabandhu and his famous friends of Satyavadi – revered as Panchasakha – had stood for.

Even the birthplace of Gopabandhu is criminally ignored and the famous Vakula Vana that was their seat of activities housing the open air school on the lap of nature has been thrown into elements.

All these chronic offenses against the immortal iconic leader of Orissa have been brought to attention of the Chief Minister by the SSF as well as by the Utkalmani Newspaper Employees Association (UNEA).

Had a semiOriya made by accident the Chief Minister not been protecting the criminals that have occupied the samaja by using a forged will, Malavya and his team should have been in the jail by this time.

They have been trying to hoodwink the people of Orissa by engaging event managers to project themselves as legitimate owners of Samaja and worshipers of Gopabandhu since last year on occasion of his birth anniversary, after being exposed threadbare in these pages on their felonious offenses against Gopabandhu.

And, even out of this venture, pocketing money in the name of Gopabandhu appears to be a strong design. At least, one understands it from the press note released by the UNEA yesterday. Fidgeted by its impact, the so-called editorial titled ‘Pranam” has been enforced in the front page of the paper that Malavya and his gang have illegally occupied.
We give below the photocopy of the Employees’ press note and urge upon the chief minister to ask the police to act against forgery committed on the iconic leader’s last will. He has so far behaved as a semiOriya despite in power for 15 years. It is time for him to graduate into a real Oriya.

Press Release_UNEA1Press Release_UNEA2

Fish Market continues in Directorate of Secondary Education: An Instance

Subhas Chandra Pattanayak
Chief Minister Naveen Patnaik was not even in the womb of politics. Orissa Assembly had to plunge into pandemonium over a frontbencher’s allegation that the education directorate had become a fish market where every file movement had a price tag. Even ministers were one with the allegation.

Sadly, the scenario has not changed. The same fish market character is yet discernible.  Director to clerks in the Directorate of Secondary Education sleep over a matter if palms are not greased and illegal orders are manufactured and enforced if pockets are taken proper care of.

I will cite a single instance.

I may cite many instances. But I am citing a single instance with the specific purpose that, for the new minister in charge of the portfolio – Sri Debi Prasad Mishra, who, unlike many of his colleagues is a sharp grasper – can pay his concentrated attention to the syndrome if a single instance is focused and reach a remedy.

So, here it is.

Sankarsan Godi Godi Sahi Bidyapitha

Director, Secondary Education, Orissa, in a letter signed by Deputy Director (NGS) on 7.5.14, has quashed the retrenchment order of Sri Dhobanath Sahu, in-charge Headmaster of this school and has allowed him “to resume in his duty in the school immediately”. This order of “so-called reinstatement” has been challenged as “illegal/arbitrary/high-handed” in W.P.(C) No.10575/2014.

Without prejudice to the case in question, it may be mentioned that the Director has created the situation for the case that has ruined the academic environment of a rural high school founded, not by the Government, but by the villagers for benefit of their children.

It is just a case study on how school education in Orissa is being imperiled by the Director of Secondary Education as his corrupt colleagues have kept the Directorate a “fish market”.

The School by the villagers for their children

As the State Government stayed apathetic to people’s demand for a High School so that the gateway to higher education could have opened for their children, the villagers of Godisahi, Godi in the district of Khurdha resolved to establish a high school by them. A man of great humanitarian concern of the locality Sri Abhay Ch. Nanda donated a decent patch of land to the villagers for establishment of the High School and the same started functioning with the collective contributions of the villagers. On recommendation of the Government, as the people had “fulfilled all the conditions for recognition”, the Board of Secondary Education recognized the private school by order No. 283 dated 8.1.1993, that helped the students graduate from the said school, which was essential for their higher education.

Churning machine of illegal TCs

The above named Dhobanath Sahu was the Headmaster in-charge of the school. He took full advantage of the recognition and made the school a churning machine of illegal certificates. Let us take into accounts only two days of a single month in order not to overload this presentation with documents. The month is May 2001 and the dates are 3 and 11. T.C. No. 1066426 was issued on 3.5.2001 to one Shyama Sunder Senapati wherein ‘purpose of leaving the school was mentioned as “For Service”. His date of admission is shown as 20.7.86 and his number in the Admission Register is shown as 15/86. Even the percentage of his attendance in the class is shown: 92.06%. But in reality, Senapati was never admitted into the School. In fact, there was no admission on 20.7.86. Obviously, Senapati wanted the TC with a date of birth suitable to him for service eligibility and he bribed heavily Sri Sahu and got the TC.

Racket of manufactured certificates

The second instance of manufactured TC is the one issued on 11.5.2001 to one Suresh Kumar Pradhan. The number of this TC is: 10066429. Pradhan is shown to have taken admission on 24.7.92 and his number in the Admission Register is shown: 26/92. The date of leaving the school is shown: 20.12.92 and the marks secured are shown ‘A’,’C’ and ‘B’ respectively against WE/SUPW, Art Education and Health/Physical Education. Yet, there is no mention of his percentage of attendance, though that is must requirement to be mentioned in the TC and he had read in the school for 17 months till the date of his leaving the school on 20.12.94. It is shown in the TC that he had left the school “For Service”. But like the previous one, this one was also manufactured against heavy payola. As records of the school shows, Pradhan was never admitted in the school, there was no admission on 24.7.92 and the Admission Register had not even reached the serial 26.

For service, authentic proof of the date of birth is essential. And, a school leaving certificate/transfer certificates (TC) carries the date of birth, legally accepted as authentic. Dhobanath Sahu churned out such certificates against huge money collected clandestinely.
Even Board of Secondary Education certificates were being generated fraudulently and sold to non-students at very heavy price in a planned manner wherein Board officials were also involved. Non-students were being sent to the Board as “regular students” for High School Examination and with the help of agents in the Board, HS Certificates were also being generated. Then Headmaster I/C Sri Sahu was handing over the same to the buyers. One such certificate bears the Serial No: M1942241. Sri Sahu has signed it on 3.12.07 as the Headmaster. But the student Nesarat Mahammad was not a student of this school.

MC in action

Such some mischief having come to the attention of the staff as well as the managing committee, before the managing committee initiate any action against his frauds, Sahu relinquished his responsibility on his own accord and requested the Secretary of the MC on 10.7.2008, that, as he was “not working properly” because of being under the load of “so many problems” , he had already “left HM and Hostel charge”; and requested him to give “HM and Hostel charge specially to Bijaya Kumar Nayak”. And, with this much intimation to the Secretary, he abandoned the school under panic.

The MC of the school, under such extraordinary situation looked into his conduct in depth. To its horror, it found that not only such fraud in generation and issuance of certificates to non-students, but also his activities included misappropriation of school properties and even selling away of a lot of classroom furniture like chairs and tables. The MC wanted to hear him in this matter. But he did not come despite repeated notices.

In its meeting No.08 of 2008, the MC recorded details of the offenses committed by Sri Sahu and unanimously adopting resolutions against him, informed the same to the Inspector of Schools,, Khurdha Circle as well as to the Director of Secondary Education and Board of Secondary Education, Orissa. The MC enumerated his offenses and resolved to dismiss him. Yet, as he had not handed over the charges, particularly the accounts of the school for 10 years under his headmastership, he was given 15 days time to handover charges as per law, failing which, as communicated to him through Advocate Ajit Kumar Patnaik on 7.11.2008, it would be deemed that he has no interest for the post and the funds not accounted for by him spanning 10 years would be treated as “misappropriated” and the MC would take “appropriate legal action” for recovery of the money.

BSE and CI involved in the racket

As Sri Sahu continued to keep mum, a big bunch of High School Certificates arrived and it was seen that the claimants of the certificates, recommended to the Board by Sahu as regular students were not at all admitted in the school. New HM I/C Bijay Kumar Nayak refused to give them the certificates, as there was no trace of them in the school admission register. Board Secretary as well as the Inspector of Schools,, Khurdha Circle forced the new HM I/C to issue them the certificates on obtaining affidavits from them wherein they were to declare their date of birth, names of parents, addresses and that they were students of the school. That was complied with and certificates, thus, were issued under signature of the new HM I/C. This proves that the Board of Secondary Education and the Inspector of Schools,, Khurdha Circle were deeply involved with this forgery and Dobanath Sahu was running the racket of certificate manufacturing in the school with their help.

Exemplary action by MC

The offenses of Sahu were so serious that in view of his total silence over the charges and abandonment of service, he could have been dismissed from service. Yet, the MC did not dismiss him. It demoted him to the 3rd position in the cadre list of its teachers and informed him of this in its Secretary’s letter dated 4.11.2008, while asking its lawyer to serve on him the notice mentioned supra. It was an exemplary action. But this magnanimity shown to him was ignored by Sahu, as he was in active Panchayat politics by then and the demotion order had not absolved him from the offenses he had committed.

The School under Block Grant

After this demotion was effected, the School was taken into the Block Grant scheme a copy of which reached the school on 6.11.2008. Block Grants ensures a minimum amount of stable salary with financial support from the state, a step ahead towards full salary at par with government schools. The school was instructed to submit its staff list for approval of appointment by 10.11.2008, which the school complied with on 8.11.2008, showing Dhobanath Sahu in the third position in the list of teachers and staff.

Approval refused to Sahu

As transpires from Government Orders communicated through Circle Inspector’s letter No. 8202 dt.25.5.2009 and letter No. 16982 dt. 9.11.2009, the government refused to approve Sahu as a teacher, as by then it was aware of the forgery and other illegalities he had committed as HM I/C of the school. But Sahu was not to miss the chance to regular pay through the gateway of Block Grant. He was anyhow to grab approved status despite denial of approval to his appointment by the government. He cultivated the lady Inspector Priti Pratima Bhol to achieve this.

Priti Pratima Bhol gives birth to a mischief

Under his influence, Inspector of Schools of the circle Ms. Priti Pratima Bhol gave birth to a mischief that has since then destroyed the academic environment of the school under loads of litigation.

She was so gained over by Sahu that she generated a letter on 25.01.10 bearing No.986 addressed directly to him as “Headmaster in charge” of the school, wherein she gave reference of two letters she had received from Sahu on 17.11.2008 and 21.12.2009 and said:

“You reported to this office that you attended the school on dt.15.11.08 and dt. 21.12.09. But the ex-secretary of the school did not allow you to resume the duty of the school.

In this connection you are requested to proceed to the school and resume the duties properly. Any obstacles arises in the matter, may be reported to the undersigned for further course of action at this end”.

The copy of this letter was communicated to Bijay Kumar Sahoo, assistant teacher of the school, requesting him “to co-operate Sri Sahu to work in the school, threatening him simultaneously that if “any deviation arises in the matter”, he “will be held responsible for the purpose”.

Priti’s mischief is as naked as a nude in this letter. In order dated 5.2.2010 in W.P.(C) No. 2096 of 2010, the High Court of Orissa had held this order illegal with the observation that the “Inspector of schools, Khurda Circle, Khurda has absolutely no jurisdiction to thrust upon the school to accept Shree Dhobanath Sahoo as Headmaster In-charge in the said institution, which is solely within the domain of the Managing Committee”. This order was recalled on technical ground in RVWPET No.42 of 2010, in order to give a chance to Sahu to step in to the Writ Case and say his version. The issue has rested there.

But the Director of Secondary Education was duty bound to take administrative steps against Priti Pratima Bhol for her corruption discernible in the letter cited supra.

These are the points that bare her corruption:

1. She was in possession of the minutes and resolutions of the School Managing Committee Meeting No.08/08 wherein forgery and misappropriations committed by Sahu and his abandonment of service were recorded;
2. She was in possession of the order of demotion of Sahu from the post of HM I/C to the third position in the list of teachers pending enquiry into his offenses;
3. She was well aware of the fact that Sahu was no more the HM I/C, as she had accepted and forwarded to the Director the statutory information sheet in Form A-(II) signed by the new MC I/C wherein Sahu was shown in the 3rd position in the list of teachers;
4. The government’s orders denying approval to Sahu’s appointment was well within her knowledge, as it was she, who had communicated the government order to the School in her letters of 25.5.09 and 9.11.09 wherein there was no trace of Sahu in the approved list of teachers eligible for Block Grant.
5. She never made any enquiry on the on Sri Sahu’s allegation that the ex-secretary did no allow him to join his duties though he had “attended the school on dt. 15.11.08 and dt.21.12.09”.
6. From letter of Sahu dated 10.07.08 till 15.11.08, where was Sahu? If he had attended the school on 15.11.08, and the ex-secretary did not allow him resume his duties, why was he silent till 25.05.09? On the other hand, if he had written the letter to the Inspector on 25.05.09 as Ms. Bhola has mentioned, where was he thereafter till 09.11.09? Ms. Priti Pratima has not required any answer on this from Sahu. She has not even asked the School to react to Sahu’s letters. She has not even revealed what action she had taken on Sahu’s letters. Not only that, but also she has not mentioned of Sahu’s letter of what date she had to issue this mischievous letter on 25.01.10 and where was Sahu from 09.11.09 till this date.

How could she address Dhobanath Sahu as HM I/C in this letter when she knew that he was not the post holder, not even an approved teacher and a teacher under the process of prosecution for misappropriation of wealth of the school and forgery of certificates?
It was incumbent upon the Director to enquire into allegations against Sahu if the school fitted into Block Grant was to be saved. In fact, on 29.04.10 by order No.21660, the Director had asked the Circle Inspector of schools, Khurda for a factual report on the well documented allegations of HM I/C of the school. The CI was the same Ms. Bhola whose mischief, as discussed above, was at the root of all the ills the school was suffering. The representation of the HM I/C dated 13.4.10 on which the Director had sought for the report, had severe allegations against the same Inspector. The “subject” of the allegation read, “Repeated harassment being meted out to S.G.G.Bidyapitha by the C.I. of Schools, Khurda”. When the allegations were such emphatically raised against the C.I. of Schools, the Director had asked the same C.I. to to enquire into the allegations and report. What a farce!

Case in the High Court

The C.I. had made the situation so unmanageable that the school had to seek intervention of the High Court of Orissa in W.P.(C) No. 22280 of 2010. In an Order dated 22.12.2010 in Misc. Case No. 20410 arising out of the writ case, the High Court, in the interim, stayed the order dated 29.11.2010 issued by the C.I. of schools, Khurda. Interestingly, Sahu filed a misc. case to be an intervener , which the Court granted. And, he moved the Court for vacating the interim order dated 22.12.10. The Court refused to vacate the stay.

Retrenchment quashed in absence of retrenchment!

When Dhobanath Sahu’s prayer has thus been rejected in the High Court and the issue is sub judice, the Director of Secondary Education has issued an order bearing No.15089 dated 06.05.14 wherein it is mentioned that the Director “has been pleased to quash the retrenchment order of Sri Dhobanath sahu, in-charge Headmaster, Sankarsan Godi Godisahi Bidyapitha, Godi and allow him to resume in his duty in the school immediately”. Sahu was never retrenched. Which order of retrenchment the Director quashed is a conundrum.

Sahu was demoted to the 3rd rank in the faculty, pending disciplinary action. Under orders of the Government the Director refused to approve his appointment for Block Grant, obviously because of his serious misconduct. So quashing his “retrenchment” when he was not retrenched and asking him to resume as Headmaster of the school, when he was not in the approved list and there was a Headmaster legitimately in chair by being appointed by the MC and recognized by the authorities,  is an offense that only a habitual offender can do; not a responsible Director of education.

The school is a non-government school and the Director has no jurisdiction to appoint anybody as Headmaster or to quash any resolution of the MC of the school. Appointment of Headmaster “is solely within the domain of the Managing Committee”, had declared the High Court on 05.02.10 in W.P.(C) 2096 of 2010.

This illegal order has been challenged in a new writ case bearing No. W.P.(C) 10575/2014.

This is just a sample of how the fish market is continuing in the Directorate of Secondary Education, Orissa, under the very nose of the Secretary and Minister of the department.