AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Biraja Prasanna Satapathy, J.
This matter is taken up through Hybrid Mode.
Heard Mr. P.R. Bhuyan, learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner and Mr.T.K. Pattanaik, learned counsel appearing for the Opp. parties.
The present Writ Petition has been filed inter alia with the following prayer:
“The Petitioner, therefore, prays that this Hon’ble Court may graciously be pleased to admit this writ petition and issue “Rule NISI” to the opp. parties to show cause as to:
(i)Why the office order No.1992 dt.13/17.04.2007 vide Annexure-11 and the order No.4104 dtd.16.08.2007 vide Annexure-13 shall not be set aside;
And
(ii)Why the Opp. Parties shall not be directed to provide the Petitioner all the benefits like promotion and etc. from the date his batchmates and juniors have availed the said benefits;
And if the opp. parties do not show cause or show insufficient cause then the rule be made absolute by issuing appropriate writ or writs, direction or directions and any other order as deem fit and proper may be passed;
And for this act of kindness, the Petitioner as in duty bound, shall ever pray.
It is contended that the proceeding in question was initiated against the Petitioner vide Charge-sheet dtd.04.08.2002 under Annexure-2. Learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner contended that such a proceeding was initiated against the Petitioner because of his implication in Colliery P.S. Case No.136 dtd.04.08.2002 under Annexure-1.
It is contended that even though both the proceedings were initiated with self-same charges, but prior to disposal of the Criminal Proceeding, Petitioner was imposed with the punishment by the Disciplinary Authority-Opp. party No.4 vide his order dtd.13.04.2007 under Annexure-11 with imposition of the following punishment.
“Demoted to the post of Dumper Operator, Gr.C”
Appeal filed by the Petitioner against such an order was also rejected by the Appellate authority-Opp. party No.2 vide Order dtd.16.08.2007 under Annexure-12. It is contended that since both the proceedings were initiated with self-same charges, prior to disposal of the Criminal Proceeding, the Disciplinary Proceeding could not have disposed of the proceeding with imposition of the punishment, so passed vide order under Annexure-11, confirmed vide order under Annexure-13.
It is further contended that in the Criminal Proceeding, Petitioner though was convicted for the offence under Sections 341 & 323 of the Indian Penal Code by the learned SDJM, Talcher in G.R. case No.448 of 2002 vide his judgment dtd.04.10.2010, but challenging such order of conviction and sentence, Petitioner moved the Appellate Court in Criminal Appeal No.9 of 2010.
It is contended that the Appellate Court vide his judgment dtd.08.07.2014 under Annexure-15, while setting aside the order of conviction and sentence, allowed the appeal and acquitted the Petitioner from the charges. It is contended that since in the Criminal proceeding, Petitioner was ultimately acquitted by the Appellate Court vide its judgment dtd.08.07.2014 under Annexure-15, the order of punishment passed under Annexure-11, confirmed vide order under Annexure-13, requires interference of this Court, in view of the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Ram Lal Vs. State of Rajasthan and Others, (Civil Appeal No.7935 of 2023), so followed in the case of Maharana Pratap Singh Vs. State of Bihar, 2025(4) SLR 915 (SC).
Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Ram Lal in Paragraphs 13,25 & 30 has held as follows:
“13.However, if the charges in the departmental enquiry and the criminal court are identical or similar, and if the evidence, witnesses and circumstances are one and the same, then the matter acquires a different dimension. If the court in judicial review concludes that the acquittal in the criminal proceeding was after full consideration of the prosecution evidence and that the prosecution miserably failed to prove the charge, the Court in judicial review can grant redress in certain circumstances. The court will be entitled to exercise its discretion and grant relief, if it concludes that allowing the findings in the disciplinary proceedings to stand will be unjust, unfair and oppressive. Each case will turn on its own facts. [See G.M. Tank vs. State of Gujarat & Others, (2006) 5 SCC 446, State Bank of Hyderabad vs. P. Kata Rao, (2008) 15 SCC 657 and S. Samuthiram (supra)]
xxx xxx xxx
25.Expressions like “benefit of doubt” and “honorably acquitted”, used in judgments are not to be understood as magic incantations. A court of law will not be carried away by the mere use of such terminology.
xxx xxx xxx
30.In view of the above, we declare that the order of termination dated 31.03.2004; the order of the Appellate Authority dated 08.10.2004; the orders dated 29.03.2008 and 25.06.2008 refusing to reconsider and review the penalty respectively, are all illegal and untenable.”
Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Maharana Pratap Singh in Para-47 & 50 has held as follows:
47.While an acquittal in a criminal case does not automatically entitle the accused to have an order of setting aside of his dismissal from public service following disciplinary proceedings, it is well-established that when the charges, evidence, witnesses, and circumstances in both the departmental inquiry and the criminal proceedings are identical or substantially similar, the situation assumes a different context. In such cases, upholding the findings in the disciplinary proceedings would be unjust, unfair, and oppressive. This is a position settled by the decision in G.M Tank (supra), since reinforced by a decision of recent origin in Ram Lal v. State of Rajasthan
xxx xxx xxx
50.The judgment acquitting the appellant reveals that the prosecution miserably failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt as both the informant and PW-2 refused to identify the appellant in court. This discussion confirms that the appellant's acquittal was based not on mere technicalities. In Ram Lal (supra), this Court held that terms like "benefit of doubt or "honourably acquitted should not be treated as formalities. The Court's duty is to focus on the substance of the judgment, rather than the terminology used.
It is also contended that this Court also has taken a similar view in WA No.589 of 2025 (State of Odisha & Others Vs. Bansidhar Bariki), disposed of on 20.03.2026. This Court in para-1,3,7,8,10 & 21 has held as follows.
1.The present Writ Appeal arises from the judgment dated 20.11.2024 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.(C) No.2265 of 2023, whereby the learned Single Judge was pleased to set aside the order of dismissal dated 05.07.2022 passed by the Superintendent of Police, Kandhamal and the appellate order dated 13.12.2022 passed by the Inspector General of Police, Southern Range, Berhampur, and further directed reinstatement of the writ petitioner with all consequential service and financial benefits.
Xxx xxx xxx
3.The facts of this case, in brief, are that the respondent was serving as a Constable in the Odisha Police establishment. On the basis of an allegation arising out of Kandhamal Sadar P.S. Case No.68 dated 29.05.2015, registered under Section 20(b)(ii)(C) read with Section 29 of the NDPS Act, he came under the scanner and was exposed to both criminal prosecution and departmental proceedings.
Xxx xxx xxx
7.Notwithstanding acquittal in the criminal case, the disciplinary authority proceeded with the departmental inquiry and ultimately passed order dated 05.07.2022 dismissing the respondent from service. The disciplinary authority concluded that the respondent had committed grave misconduct unbecoming of police personnel.
Xxx xxx xxx
8.The respondent preferred departmental appeal in the nature of representation before the Inspector General of Police, Southern Range, Berhampur. The appellate authority, by order dated 13.12.2022, affirmed the dismissal order without granting relief.
Xxx xxx xxx
10.The learned Single Judge, upon examining the rival submissions advanced by the parties and upon careful consideration of the materials available on record, placed reliance upon the principles laid down in several judgments. Upon such consideration, the learned Single Judge came to hold that in the facts and circumstances of the present case, the acquittal recorded by the criminal court was not merely technical in nature but was based on failure of the prosecution to establish the involvement of the respondent in the alleged offence. The learned Single Judge further held that the disciplinary authorities had failed to demonstrate the existence of any independent material or evidence which could justify the imposition of punishment despite the acquittal recorded in the criminal trial. Accordingly, the learned Single Judge set aside the order of dismissal as well as the appellate order affirming the same and directed reinstatement of the respondent with all consequential service and financial benefits.
xxx xxx xxx
21.Accordingly, the Writ Appeal being devoid of merit stands dismissed.
It is contended that since it is not disputed that both the proceedings were initiated with self-charges and in the Criminal Proceeding, Petitioner has now been acquitted vide judgment dtd.08.07.2014 under Annexure-15, order of punishment so imposed on the Petitioner vide order under Annexure-11, continued in Appeal vide Order under Annexure-13 requires interference of this Court.
Mr. T.K. Pattanaik, learned counsel appearing for the Opp. Parties, on the other hand contended that even though the proceeding was initiated against the Petitioner under Annexure-2, because of his implication in the criminal proceeding in Colliery P.S. Case No.136 dtd.04.08.2002, but the Disciplinary Authority proceeded with the matter in accordance with the law and imposed the punishment vide order dtd.13.04.2007 under Annexure-11. It is also contended that in the inquiry so conducted, Petitioner was found guilty of the charges.
It is further contended that appeal filed by the Petitioner under Anenxure-12 was also duly considered by Opp. party No.2 and the appeal was rejected vide order dtd.16.08.2007 under Annexure-13. It is further contended that in the Criminal Proceeding, Petitioner was also convicted by the learned SDJM, Talcher in G.R. Case No.448 of 2002 vide his judgment dtd.04.10.2010.
Since prior to disposal of the Criminal Proceeding, the order of conviction and sentence was passed, no illegality or irregularity can be found with the impugned order of punishment passed under Annexure-11, confirmed vide order under Annexure-13. However, it is contended that since Petitioner has been acquitted by the appellate Court vide its judgment dtd.08.07.2014 in Criminal Appeal No.9 of 2010 under Annexure-15, Petitioner should have moved the Disciplinary authority for re-consideration of the punishment. It is however contended that no illegality or irregularity can be found with the impugned orders.
Having heard learned counsel for the parties and considering the submission made, this Court finds that the proceeding in question was initiated against the Petitioner vide charge-sheet dtd.04.08.2002 under Annexure-2, because of the implication of the Petitioner in the Criminal Proceeding in Colliery P.S. Case No.136 dtd.04.08.2002, corresponding to G.R. Case No.448 of 2002 in the file of learned S.D.J.M., Talcher.
As found, prior to disposal of the Criminal Proceeding, the Disciplinary authority-Opp. party No.4 basing on the inquiry report so submitted, imposed the punishment of demotion to the post of Dumper Operator Group-C vide his order dtd.13/17.04.2007 under Annexure-11. Appeal filed by the Petitioner was also rejected by Opp. Party No.2 vide his order dtd.16.08.2007 under Annexure-13.
However, since Petitioner after his conviction and sentence by the learned S.D.J.M, Talcher, has been acquitted by the Appellate Court vide its judgment dtd.08.07.2014 in Criminal Appeal No.9 of 2010 under Annexure-15, this Court placing reliance on the decisions as cited supra, is of the view that the order of punishment cannot be sustained.
Therefore, this Court is inclined to quash the order of punishment so imposed on the Petitioner vide order under Annexure-11, so confirmed vide order under Annexure-13. While quashing both the orders, this Court directs Opp. party No.4 to extend consequential service and financial benefits as due and admissible in favour of the Petitioner. This Court directs Opp. party No.4 to complete the entire exercise within a period of 4(four) months from the date of receipt of this order.
The Writ Petition accordingly stands disposed of.