[ad_1]
Orissa High Court
Duryodhan Naik vs State Of Odisha And on 8 August, 2025
Author: Biraja Prasanna Satapathy
Bench: Biraja Prasanna Satapathy
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
W.P.(C) No.21742 of 2025
Duryodhan Naik .... Petitioner
Mr. A.K. Das, Advocate
-versus-
State of Odisha and
Others .... Opposite Parties
Mr. A. Tripathy, AGA
CORAM:
JUSTICE BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY
ORDER
Order No. 08.08.2025
01. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement
(Virtual/Physical) Mode.
2. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
3. The present Writ Petition has been filed inter alia
challenging order dated 24.12.2024 so passed by O.P.
No.3 under Annexure-7. Vide the said order, claim of
the petitioner for his reinstatement by setting aside the
order of discharge passed on 21.03.2007 was rejected.
4. It is contended that petitioner because of his
implication in Cuttack Vigilance P.S. Case No.34 dated
18.09.2006, was discharged from his services vide
order dated 21.03.2007. However, in the said Vigilance
Proceeding, petitioner was acquitted vide judgment
dated 18.09.2023 in VGR No.34 of 2006 under
Annexure-2.
// 2 //
4.1. It is contended that on his acquittal in the
Vigilance proceeding, petitioner when moved O.P. No.3
with a prayer to reinstate him in his service by
quashing the order of discharge passed by the
Commandant on 21.03.2007, the same was rejected
vide the impugned order under dated 24.12.2024
Annexure-7.
4.2. It is contended that since the Vigilance proceeding
for which the petitioner was discharged from his services
on 21.03.2007, ended in acquittal vide judgment dated
18.09.2023, in view of the decision of the Hon’ble Apex
Court in the case of Ram Lal Vrs. State of Rajasthan
and 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.
Hon’ble Apex Court in Para-13, 25 and 30 of the decision
in the case of Ramlal 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 standPage 2 of 5
// 3 //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)]
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.
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.”
4.3. 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 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 Rajasthan31.
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.”
4.4. However, without proper appreciation of the same,
claim of the petitioner was rejected vide the impugned
Page 3 of 5
// 4 //
order dated 24.12.2024 under Annexure-7. It is
accordingly contended that the impugned order is not
sustainable in the eye of law.
5. Learned Addl. Govt. Advocate on the other hand
contended that since petitioner because of his
implication in the Vigilance case was discharged from
service on 21.03.2007, no illegality of irregularity can
be found with the same. However, even though vide
judgment dated 18.09.2023, petitioner was acquitted in
the Vigilance proceeding but the other co-accused has
been released under the provisions of Probation of
Offenders Act.
5.1. It is accordingly contended that since both the
accused persons were not acquitted in the Vigilance
Proceeding and one of the accused was extended with
the benefit in the Probation of Offenders Act, it cannot
be held that petitioner was cleanly acquitted in the
Vigilance Proceeding. It is accordingly contended that
petitioner’s claim for re-instatement because of his
acquittal in the vigilance proceeding has been rightly
rejected and it requires no interference.
6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and
considering the submissions made, this Court finds
that on his implication in the Vigilance proceeding,
petitioner was discharged from his services vide order
dated 21.03.2007 of the Commandant, Dhenkanal. It is
found that in the Vigilance Proceeding so initiated
Page 4 of 5
// 5 //
against the petitioner and another co-accused vide
judgment dated 18.09.2023 under Annexure-2,
petitioner was acquitted from the charges. Placing
reliance on the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in
the case of Ram Lal so followed in the case of
Maharana Pratap Singh as cited (supra), it is the
view of this Court that since petitioner has been
acquitted in the Vigilance proceeding for which he was
discharged from his services, petitioner is eligible and
entitled to get the benefit of reinstatement. Therefore,
this Court is inclined to quash order dated 24.12.2024
so passed under Annexure-7. While quashing the
same, this Court directs Opp. Party No.3 to pass an
order of reinstatement in favour of the petitioner
reinstating the petitioner as a Home Guard. This Court
directs O.P. No.3 to pass appropriate order as directed
within a period of 4 (four) weeks from the date of
receipt of this order.
7. The Writ Petition stands disposed of accordingly.
(Biraja Prasanna Satapathy)
Judge
Basudev
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: BASUDEV SWAIN
Reason: Authentication
Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack
Date: 12-Aug-2025 13:30:36
Page 5 of 5
[ad_2]
Source link