[ad_1]
Orissa High Court
Tusar Kanta Majhi vs State Of Odisha & Ors. …. Opposite … on 5 August, 2025
Author: Biraja Prasanna Satapathy
Bench: Biraja Prasanna Satapathy
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
W.P.(C) No.1346 of 2024
In the matter of an application under Articles 226 & 227 of the
Constitution of India.
..................
Tusar Kanta Majhi .... Petitioner
-versus-
State of Odisha & Ors. .... Opposite Parties
For Petitioner : Mr. J.K. Lenka, Advocate
For Opp. Parties : Mr. P.K. Panda, ASC
PRESENT:
THE HON'BLE JUSTICE BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Date of Hearing: 05.08.2025 and Date of Judgment: 05.08.2025
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Biraja Prasanna Satapathy, J.
1. This matter is taken up through hybrid mode.
2. Heard Dr. J.K. Lenka, learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner and
Mr. P.K. Panda, learned Addl. Standing Counsel appearing for the Opp.
Parties.
3. The present writ petition has been filed inter alia with the following
prayer:-
// 2 //
“It is therefore humbly prayed that let this Hon’ble Court
may graciously be pleased to consider the facts stated
above, call for the records and issue notice to the
Opposite Parties in Rule NISI, calling upon the Opp.
Parties to show cause as to why;
i) under the disengagement order Annexure-5 shall not be
quashed;
ii) the order of rejection for reinstatement of the
petitioner in service dated 25.10.2019 under Annexure-7
and order dated 18.12.2023 under Annexure-11 shall not
be quashed.
iii) the Opp. Parties shall not be directed to reinstate the
petitioner in forthwith;
iv) the Opp. Parties shall not be directed to regularize the
service of the petitioner at par with his batch mates and
to extend all service benefits accrued in favour of the
petitioner pursuant to the Judgment of acquittal under
Annexure-8;
if the Opp. Parties fail to show cause or show insufficient
cause then the Rule shall be made absolute.”
4. It is contended that the Petitioner vide order dtd.13.09.2010 under
Annexure-2 on being sponsored by the Committee of Chief Engineers was
engaged as a GPTA on contractual basis. However, while so continuing
when Petitioner was implicated in a vigilance case and remained in
custody for more than 48 hours, he was terminated from his services vide
order dtd.28.06.2017 under Annexure-5.
4.1. Challenging such order of termination when Petitioner approached
this Court by filing W.P.(C) No. 15422 of 2019 and this Court directed
for consideration of his prayer for reengagement as GPTA in Rayagada
district, the same was rejected vide order dtd.25.10.2019 under
Page 2 of 9
// 3 //
Annexure-7. It is contended that in the vigilance proceeding basing on
which he was terminated vide order dtd.28.06.2017, he was acquitted
vide Judgment dtd.31.03.2023 under Annexure-8. After such acquittal in
the vigilance proceeding Petitioner made a prayer before Opp. Party No.
1 to reinstate him in service.
4.2. It is contended that when prayer for such reengagement after his
acquittal in the vigilance proceeding was not considered, Petitioner
approached this Court by filing W.P.(C) No. 37876 of 2023. This Court
vide order dtd.23.11.2023 under Annexure-10 when directed for
reconsideration taking into account the order of acquittal passed in the
vigilance proceeding, the same was again rejected by Opp. Party No. 1
vide order dtd.18.12.2023 under Annexure-11.
4.3. Learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner contended that Petitioner
was so terminated while continuing in service on contractual basis
because of his implication in the vigilance case and remaining in custody
for more than 48 hours.
4.4. It is contended that since the ground on which Petitioner was
terminated is the initiation of the vigilance proceeding and in the said
proceeding he has now been honourably acquitted vide Judgment
dtd.31.03.2023 under Annexure-A, in view of the decision rendered by
Apex Court in the case of Ram Lal Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. (Civil
Appeal No. 7935 of 2023) so followed in the case of Maharana Pratap
Singh vs. The State of Bihar and Others, (Civil Appeal No. 5497 of
2025), Petitioner is eligible to get the benefit of reinstatement.
Page 3 of 9
// 4 //
4.5. Hon’ble Apex Court in Para-13, 25 and 30 of the decision in the case
of Ram Lal 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.”
4.6. Hon’ble Apex Court in Para-47 & 50 of the decision in the case of
Maharana Pratap Singh 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 criminalPage 4 of 9
// 5 //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 Rajasthan31.
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.”
4.7. It is accordingly contended that rejection of the Petitioners’ claim
vide the impugned order dtd.18.12.2023 under Annexure-11 and the order
of disengagement initially passed on 28.06.2017 under Annexure-5 are not
sustainable in the eye of law and requires interference of this Court.
5. Mr. P.K. Panda, learned Addl. Standing Counsel on the other hand
made his submission basing on the stand taken in the counter affidavit so
filed by Opp. Party Nos. 1 & 2. It is contended that since by the time
Petitioner was disengaged vide order under Annexure-5 he was continuing
as a contractual employee, Petitioner was terminated in terms of the order
of engagement issued under Annexure-2.
Page 5 of 9
// 6 //
5.1. It is also contended that even though the Petitioner has been acquitted
in the vigilance proceeding vide Judgment dtd.31.03.2023 under
Annexure-A but his claim for reinstatement is not automatic and
considering the materials available against him, the authorities while
taking a decision in terms of the earlier order of this Court, came to a
conclusion that Petitioner has been rightly terminated. It is also contended
that since Petitioner while continuing as a contractual employee involved
himself in the vigilance proceeding, he is not eligible for such
reinstatement. Reliance was placed to a decision of the Apex Court
Imtiyaz Ahmad Malla Vs. State of Jamu Kashmir & Ors. (2023) 19 SCC
588. Hon’ble Apex Court in Para 11 of the said judgment has held as
follows:-
“11. It was further observed therein that if the Screening
Committee’s decision was not mala fide or actuated by
extraneous considerations, then the same could not be
questioned : (Mehar Singh case [Delhi Police v. Mehar Singh,
(2013) 7 SCC 685 : (2013) 3 SCC (Cri) 669 : (2013) 2 SCC
(L&S) 910] , SCC pp. 703-704, paras 35-36)
“35. The police force is a disciplined force. It shoulders the
great responsibility of maintaining law and order and public
order in the society. People repose great faith and confidence in
it. It must be worthy of that confidence. A candidate wishing to
join the police force must be a person of utmost rectitude. He
must have impeccable character and integrity. A person having
criminal antecedents will not fit in this category. Even if he is
acquitted or discharged in the criminal case, that acquittal or
discharge order will have to be examined to see whether he has
been completely exonerated in the case because even a
possibility of his taking to the life of crimes poses a threat to the
discipline of the police force. The standing order, therefore, has
entrusted the task of taking decisions in these matters to the
Screening Committee. The decision of the Screening Committee
must be taken as final unless it is mala fide. In recent times, the
image of the police force is tarnished. Instances of police
personnel behaving in a wayward manner by misusing power
are in public domain and are a matter of concern. ThePage 6 of 9
// 7 //reputation of the police force has taken a beating. In such a
situation, we would not like to dilute the importance and efficacy
of a mechanism like the Screening Committee created by the
Delhi Police to ensure that persons who are likely to erode its
credibility do not enter the police force. At the same time, the
Screening Committee must be alive to the importance of the
trust reposed in it and must treat all candidates with an even
hand.
36. The Screening Committee’s proceedings have been assailed
as being arbitrary, unguided and unfettered. But, in the present
cases, we see no evidence of this. However, certain instances
have been pointed out where allegedly persons involved in
serious offences have been recommended for appointment by the
Screening Committee. It is well-settled that to such cases the
doctrine of equality enshrined in Article 14 of the Constitution
of India is not attracted. This doctrine does not envisage
negative equality (Fuljit Kaur [Fuljit Kaur v. State of Punjab,
(2010) 11 SCC 455]). It is not meant to perpetuate illegality or
fraud because it embodies a positive concept. If the Screening
Committee which is constituted to carry out the object of the
comprehensive policy to ensure that people with doubtful
background do not enter the police force, deviates from the
policy, makes exception and allows entry of undesirable
persons, it is undoubtedly guilty of committing an act of grave
disservice to the police force but we cannot allow that illegality
to be perpetuated by allowing the respondents to rely on such
cases. It is for the Commissioner of Police, Delhi to examine
whether the Screening Committee has compromised the interest
of the police force in any case and to take remedial action if he
finds that it has done so. Public interest demands an in-depth
examination of this allegation at the highest level. Perhaps, such
deviations from the policy are responsible for the spurt in police
excesses. We expect the Commissioner of Police, Delhi to look
into the matter and if there is substance in the allegations to
take necessary steps forthwith so that policy incorporated in the
standing order is strictly implemented.””
6. Having heard learned counsel appearing for the Parties and considering
the submissions made, this Court finds that Petitioner was engaged as
GPTA vide order of appointment issued on 13.09.2010 under Annexure-2.
Because of his implication in the vigilance case and remaining in custody
for more than 48 hours, he was terminated vide order dtd.28.06.2017
basing on the show-cause issued on 01.06.2017. Subsequently, when
Page 7 of 9
// 8 //
Petitioner made a prayer for his reengagement, that was not acceded to
vide order dtd.25.10.2019 under Annexure-7. However, in the vigilance
proceeding when Petitioner was acquitted vide judgment dtd.3103.2023
under Annexure-8, he made a fresh prayer to reinstate him as the ground
on which Petitioner was terminated, no more subsists, but the said prayer
was also rejected by the Govt.-Opp. Party No. 1 vide order dtd.18.12.2023
under Annexure-11.
6.1. Since the Petitioner was disengaged because of his implication in the
vigilance proceeding and remaining in custody for more than 48 hours and
in the meantime he has already been acquitted vide Judgment
dtd.31.03.2023 under Annexure-8, placing reliance on the decision in the
case of Ram Lal so followed in Maharana Pratap Singh as cited supra,
this Court is of the view that the order of disengagement no more subsists
and it should have been recalled by allowing reinstatement in favour of
the Petitioner. The decision relied on by the learned Addl. Standing
Counsel as per the considered view of this Court, is not applicable to the
facts of the present case.
6.2. Therefore, this Court while quashing order dtd.18.12.2023 so passed
by Opp. Party No. 1 under Annexure-11 and order of disengagement
passed by the Collector-Opp. Party No. 3 on 28.06.2017 under Annexure-
5, direct Opp. Party No. 3 to pass an order of reinstatement by reengaging
the Petitioner in his post within a period of four (4) weeks from the date of
receipt of this order.
6.3. Since this Court is directing an order of reinstatement in favour of the
Petitioner, his claim for regularization be considered in terms of the
Page 8 of 9
// 9 //
Resolution dtd.19.03.2018 so enclosed vide Annexure-A/1 to the counter
affidavit and the break period of service be regularized in accordance with
law.
7. The writ petition accordingly stands disposed of with the aforesaid
observation and direction.
(Biraja Prasanna Satapathy)
Judge
Orissa High Court, Cuttack
Dated the 5th of August, 2025/Sneha
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: SNEHANJALI PARIDA
Reason: Authentication
Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack
Date: 13-Aug-2025 10:50:21
Page 9 of 9
[ad_2]
Source link