Applications under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India v. State of Odisha & Ors.

Judgment

22.05.2026 A.K. Mohapatra, J. :

1. The W.P.(C) No.6795 of 2025 has been filed by the Petitioner- Pragnya Paramita Swain with a prayer to quash the impugned order of rejection dated 13.02.2025, passed by the Block Education Officer, Kuarmunda, under Annexure-19, along with a further prayer to direct the Opposite Parties to re-instate the Petitioner in service and allow her all consequential service and financial benefits emanating therefrom.

2. Likewise, the W.P.(C) No.12944 of 2025 has been filed by the Petitioner-Sandhyarani Pallauri assailing the impugned rejection order dated

28.03.2025 along with the revised rejection order dated 18.06.2025 passed by the Collector-cum-Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad, Sundargarh, under Annexure-12 and Annexure-12(a) respectively. The Petitioner has also made an additional prayer to issue a direction to the Opposite Parties to reinstate her service, regularise her as Elementary Level-V Teacher from the date of her eligibility as per the Government Notification dated 22.12.2016, and to disburse all her consequential service and financial benefits.

3. Since the aforesaid two Writ Petitions arise out of a similar set of facts and circumstances and seek substantially similar reliefs from this Court, they are taken up together for adjudication by way of this common judgment. For the sake of convenience, W.P.(C) No.6795 of 2025 is treated as the lead matter. FACTUAL MATRIX OF THE CASE

4. On a perusal of the aforesaid CRLMC petitions, the following common factual matrix emerges; both petitioners were erstwhile Education Volunteers who were engaged as Gana Sikshyaks in the District of Sundargarh by the Collector-cum-Chairman, Sarba Siksha Abhiyan (SSA) & Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad, Sundargarh in August of 2008, and both of them joined service on 12.08.2008. Thereafter, both Petitioners appeared in the Odisha Teacher Eligibility Test (OTET) conducted by the Board of Secondary Education, Odisha pursuant to Government Notification No.25290 dated 22.12.2016, which required Gana Sikshyaks to qualify the OTET by 31.03.2019 in order to remain eligible for annual increments. Both petitioners received their respective OTET Pass Certificates by post from the Board of Secondary Education, Odisha through EMS Speed Post.

5. However, in August 2021, the District Project Coordinator, Samagra Shiksha, Sundargarh issued a Show Cause notice dated 25.08.2021 to each of them, alleging that the OTET Certificates produced by them were fake. The Petitioners submitted their respective replies on 13.09.2021 denying the allegations. Thereafter, both Petitioners were removed from service in September 2021. A criminal case was also instituted against both on the basis of the self-same allegations, registered as Biramitrapur P.S. Case No.179 of 2021, lodged by the Block Education Officer, Kuarmunda. Subsequently, the case went to trial and the Petitioners were acquitted in the said criminal case by virtue of the Judgment and Order dated 29.04.2024 passed by the learned C.J.-cum-Judicial Magistrate First Class, Biramitrapur, Sundargarh in T.R. No.225 of 2024 arising out of G.R. Case No.1437 of

2021. Despite their acquittal in the criminal case initiated on self-same allegations as the departmental action, and despite repeated orders of this Hon'ble Court quashing the orders of removal issued against the Petitioners and directing fresh consideration of their reinstatement claims guided by the ratio of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ram Lal v. State of Rajasthan and others, reported in (2024) 1 SCC 175, the concerned Opposite Party- authorities have persistently rejected the reinstatement claims of both the Petitioners on the same grounds, compelling both petitioners to approach this Hon'ble Court once again.

6. As has been clarified above, even though the present batch of writ petitions arise out of similar factual matrix, however notwithstanding the above common background facts, the two cases differ in the following material particulars; a) The Petitioner in W.P.(C) No.6795 of 2025, Pragnya Paramita Swain (hereinafter “the 1st Petitioner”), was initially engaged pursuant to Order No.1847 dated 02.08.2008 (Annexure-1). Notably, prior to her removal, she stood regularized as a Primary School Teacher Level-V (Ex- Cadre) with effect from 01.03.2017 by virtue of Order No.125 dated

04.01.2018 (Annexure-2). Subsequently, she appeared in the OTET examination held on 16.01.2019. However, the result thereof was cancelled, requiring her to reappear on 07.08.2019, in which she claims to have secured 92 marks (inclusive of grace marks awarded by the Board on account of ambiguities in the question paper). Thereafter, she was removed from service by the Block Education Officer, Kuarmunda, vide order dated 21.09.2021 (Annexure-8). Assailing the said dismissal, the Petitioner initially approached this Court in W.P.(C) No.31847 of 2021, which was disposed of on 17.10.2022 granting her liberty to prefer an appeal before the Director, Elementary Education, Odisha. Pursuant thereto, the appeal preferred by the Petitioner was disposed of with a direction to the Block Education Officer, Kuarmunda, to re-examine the matter in accordance with the O.C.S. (CCA) Rules, 1962. The Petitioner thereafter filed W.P.(C) No.15866 of 2023, which was disposed of on

17.05.2023 directing Opposite Party No.6 to decide her pending representation. However, instead of undertaking a fresh consideration, the

Block Education Officer reaffirmed the earlier dismissal. In the interregnum, the Petitioner was acquitted in the criminal proceedings instituted against her. She thereafter filed W.P.(C) No.14355 of 2024, which was disposed of on 18.06.2024 by quashing the dismissal order and directing reconsideration of her case in light of the dictum in Ram Lal (supra). A contempt petition being CONTC No.6702 of 2024 was also filed and disposed of on 28.01.2025 directing compliance within one month. At present, the Petitioner has approached this Court assailing the impugned order dated 13.02.2025 passed by the Block Education Officer, Kuarmunda, whereby her claim for reinstatement has once again been rejected on substantially identical grounds. b) The petitioner in W.P.(C) No.12944 of 2025, Sandhyarani Pallauri (hereinafter the “2nd Petitioner”), was engaged as Gana Sikshyak vide Engagement Order No.1862 dated 08.08.2008, at Annexure-1 therein, and was removed by the Collector-cum-Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad, Sundargarh vide Disengagement Order dated 16.09.2021. She had appeared in OTET 2019 and claims to have secured 77 marks, which was sufficient for her to qualify as an SEBC candidate (minimum passing marks being 70). The present petition is the third round of litigation involving the Petitioner before this Court. Earlier, relying on her acquittal in the criminal case instituted on the self-same charges, the Petitioner filed W.P.(C) No.17206 of 2024 which was disposed of on 24.07.2024 by quashing the disengagement order and directing the Opposite Party to take a fresh decision on the Petitioner’s claim. However, pursuant thereto, her representation was rejected. Aggrieved, she approached this Court again via W.P.(C) No.24589 of 2024 which was disposed of on

21.01.2025, quashing the first rejection order of 07.08.2024 and directing fresh decision in light of the order dated 07.01.2025 in W.P.(C) No.5345 of 2021 and batch. The impugned order in the present petition is the rejection order dated 28.03.2025 and its revised version dated 18.06.2025, at Annexure-12 and 12(a) respectively, passed by the Collector, Sundargarh, who initiated a Misc. Case bearing No.16/2025 and again rejected her claim vide the order dated 28.03.2025 on the same grounds. COUNTER AFFIDAVIT filed by the OPPOSITE PARTY NO.5 and the REJOINDER thereto filed by the PETITIONER

7. The principal grounds taken by Opposite Party No.5 (Block Education Officer, Kuarmunda) in the Counter Affidavit filed in W.P.(C) No.6795 of 2025, later adopted in W.P.(C) No.12944 of 2025, are as follows: a. The condition No.10 in the engagement order No.1847 dated

02.08.2008, pursuant to an agreement dated 08.07.2008 with the Collector-cum-Chairman, SSA and CEO, Zilla Parisad, Sundargarh, wherein the Petitioner was engaged as Gana Shikhyaka, specifically provided that the engagement would be cancelled if any fraudulent testimonial was detected, and the person would be criminally prosecuted. b. The appointment order No.125 dated 04.01.2018 of the DEO, Sundargarh, pursuant to Government Resolution No.14467/SME dated

25.07.2016 and Notification No.25290/SME dated 22.12.2016, wherein the Petitioner was provisionally appointed as Level-V Asst. Teacher (Ex- Cadre) w.e.f. 01.03.2017, carried the condition that the Petitioner had to pass OTET by 31.03.2019 (failing which no further increment after

31.03.2018 would be given) and that the appointment would be cancelled/terminated if any submitted testimonial was subsequently found to be fraudulent. c. The DEO-cum-DPC, Samagra Shiksha, Sundargarh vide letter No.1946 dated 24.06.2021, intimated that allegations had been received from different forums regarding submission of fake OTET certificates by teachers, that such news had been published in newspapers, and directed verification of the OTET certificates. Accordingly, the BEO, Kuarmunda requested the Secretary, Board of Secondary Education, Odisha, Cuttack, vide letter No.965/966 dated 29.06.2021, to verify the genuineness of the OTET certificate produced by the Petitioner. d. The Secretary, Board of Secondary Education, Odisha, Cuttack, vide letter No.612 dated 13.08.2021, officially intimated that the photo copy of the OTET certificate of the petitioner is false and fabricated, that she has not qualified OTET-2019, and that the certificate is not genuine. The Assistant Secretary, Board of Secondary Education, vide letter No.1189 dated 22.09.2021, further intimated the BEO that the certificate produced by the petitioner does not tally with the Board's records and appears to be fake. Consequently, the Director, Elementary Education, Odisha, Bhubaneswar vide letter No.12227 dated 29.07.2021 sent an allegation petition against the petitioner and requested disengagement and lodging of FIR. e. Thereafter, a show cause notice was issued to the Petitioner vide letter No.4101 dated 25.08.2021 and the BEO was directed to lodge FIR vide letter No.4130 dated 27.08.2021. The Petitioner’s reply dated

13.09.2021 to the show-cause was received, examined and the petitioner was dismissed from service vide order No.1564 dated 21.09.2021 of the BEO, Kuarmunda. f. Pursuant to the direction in W.P.(C) No.31847/2021, the Opposite Party No.2 (Director, Elementary Education) rejected the Petitioner's appeal vide order No.414 dated 11.01.2023. The Petitioner filed another appeal before the Director, who, vide letter No.7217 dated 27.03.2023, directed the BEO to re-examine the matter under O.C.S. (CCA) Rules,

1962. Accordingly, a formal departmental proceeding was initiated vide memorandum No.650 dated 10.04.2023 under Rule 15 of O.C.S. (CCA) Rules, 1962. Such proceeding was disposed of vide order No.1275 dated

27.07.2023, which (a) censured the petitioner and (b) found her guilty of violation of Govt. rules for submitting fake OTET certificate, holding that her continuance in service is illegal and sustaining the original order of dismissal dated 21.09.2021. g. Thereafter, the petitioner filed W.P.(C) No.14355 of 2024, which was disposed of by this Court vide order dated 18.06.2024 by quashing the order dated 27.07.2023 and directing a fresh decision by the BEO. Pursuant thereto, the BEO considered the petitioner's claim and rejected it vide order No.325 dated 13.02.2025. h. With regard to the applicability of Ram Lal v. State of Rajasthan (Civil Appeal No.7935 of 2023) to the Petitioner’s case, it has been stated in Ram Lal (supra) the certificate's genuineness remained inconclusive, no issuing authority certified it as forged, and there was no conclusive independent evidence of fraudulent intent. Hence, the Supreme Court reinstated Ram Lal. In the present case however, the OTET certificate has been officially verified and certified as fake by the Board of Secondary Education, Odisha which is the very issuing authority. i. It has been stated that conviction in criminal proceedings requires proof beyond reasonable doubt, but departmental proceedings only require preponderance of probability. The Petitioner may have been acquitted in the criminal court due to lack of direct evidence or procedural lapses, but the confirmed fake certificate alone is sufficient to prove misconduct under the departmental standard. The established fact of the fake certificate, combined with the petitioner's knowledge that she had not qualified OTET and that she checked her result on an unnamed 'random website', creates a preponderance of evidence of misconduct. j. It has been argued that the present case is squarely covered by Airports Authority of India Vrs. Pradip Kumar Banerjee (Civil Appeal No.8414 of 2017 decided on 04.02.2025), where a confirmed fake certificate forms the basis of dismissal, acquittal in the criminal court does not erase the disciplinary violation, and submitting a confirmed fake certificate is more serious and independently sufficient for dismissal under Government Conduct Rules.

8. As a reply to the aforesaid Counter Affidavit, the Petitioner in W.P.(C) No.6795 of 2025 has filed a Rejoinder Affidavit, advancing therein the following arguments; a. That the Petitioner was dismissed on 21.09.2021 without following the procedure under O.C.S. (CCA) Rules, 1962. When Opp. Party No.2 pointed out the procedural lapses, Opp. Party No.5, without reinstating the petitioner, conducted a fresh proceeding in a 'novel manner' and confirmed dismissal on 27.07.2023 again without following O.C.S. (CCA) Rules, 1962 or providing a copy of the ex-parte enquiry report. b. Even though the Petitioner was acquitted in the criminal case on

29.04.2024 and the dismissal order dated 27.07.2023 was quashed by the High Court on 18.06.2024 in W.P.(C) No.14355 of 2024 with directions to the Opposite Parties to consider reinstating her in light of Ram Lal (supra), the Opposite Party No.5 again passed a dismissal order on

13.02.2025 against the Petitioner. c. Challenging the OP No.5’s contention that condition No.10 of the engagement order and the conditions in the regularization order of the Petitioner to justifies her dismissal, the Petitioner has stated that the OTET Rules were framed only in 2012 (Resolution No.14302 dated

04.06.2012), i.e., four years after the Petitioner's engagement in 2008. The OTET requirement was therefore a retrospective imposition. d. The Petitioner possessed the requisite educational and training qualifications when she became a regular teacher in 2017. She appeared in OTET only for the purpose of getting annual increment. It has been stated that the Petitioner that she first appeared in the examination on

16.01.2019, but that result was cancelled. She then appeared on

07.08.2019 and secured 92 marks. Pursuant thereto, she received the OTET certificate at her home through EMS Speed Post No.EO5401723081N, bearing the seal of the Board of Secondary Education, Odisha (at Annexures 4 & 5). In fact, by scanning the bar- code on the certificate, the result sheet was displayed on the Board's website showing the Petitioner had passed the examination with 92 marks, confirming the authenticity of the certificate on its face. e. Moreover, if the certificate was not genuine, it was the Petitioner who was defrauded and should not be punished for the same. At most, she could have been asked to re-appear in OTET examination. f. Reference has been made to the admission by the Opposite Party No.5 in the judgement dated 29.04.2024, wherein the Petitioner has been acquitted in a criminal case instituted on self-same allegations, and it has been stated that the Petitioner did not derive any appointment benefit or financial benefit from the certificate. Even if the certificate were not genuine, it cannot be a ground for termination since she was not appointed on its basis and took no benefit from it. Therefore, the termination is illegal and in gross violation of Natural Justice principles. g. Again referring to the judgement of acquittal dated 29.04.2024, it has been stated that the prosecution examined 14 witnesses in trial but failed to prove the case against the Petitioner for commission of any offence under Sections 465/471 IPC, and the trial Court has found the petitioner as not guilty and has duly acquitted her. Therefore, the Petitioner is entitled to reinstatement in service in light of the principle laid down by the Supreme Court in catena of decisions. However, when the Opposite Parties did not reinstate her after her acquittal, she filed W.P.(C) No.14355 of 2024 and this Court on 18.06.2024 quashed the order dated 27.07.2023 and remitted the matter to Opp. Party No.5 for fresh decision in light of Ram Lal (supra). h. Despite this Court quashing the rejection order passed by Opp. Party No.5 in prior writ petitions filed by the Petitioner, the Opposite Parties have repeatedly passed the same order rejecting the Petitioner's case on identical grounds. The Petitioner argues that this reveals a pre- conceived mind and malafide intention on the part of the Opposite Parties. CONTENTIONS OF THE PETITIONER

9. Heard Mr. Manoranjan Mohanty, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Ms. Subhashree Mohanty, learned Advocate. Perused the written submissions and the Rejoinder Affidavit. The learned senior counsel has put forth the following contentions in favour of claims made by the two Petitioners; a) That both petitioners were erstwhile Education Volunteers who were engaged as Gana Sikshyaks in the District of Sundargarh and joined in service on 12.08.2008. Both the Petitioners possessed the requisite qualifications, educational and otherwise, at the time of engagement and continued to discharge their duties peacefully to the satisfaction of their authorities for more than a decade without any allegation of professional misconduct during such tenure. b) It has been submitted that as per the Government Notification No.25290 dated 22.12.2016, a copy of which is present at Annexure-3 to W.P.(C) No.6795 of 2025, Gana Sikshyaks were required to qualify the OTET by 31.03.2019, failing which they would not be entitled to further annual increments. In order to comply with this requirement, both Petitioners appeared in the OTET examination conducted by the Board of Secondary Education, Odisha, and received their respective OTET Pass Certificates by post, from the Board, through EMS Speed Post. It is the contention of the learned senior counsel that since the certificates were dispatched to them directly by the official issuing authority, they had absolutely no reason to doubt the genuineness of the certificates so received. In fact, it was by scanning the bar-code provided in the certificate that the Petitioners checked their result on the Board of Secondary Education, Odisha website and found out that they have both qualified the examination. c) The learned senior counsel thereafter submitted that after the allegation of submitting fake OTET certificate was levelled against the Petitioners, a criminal case in the shape of Biramitrapur P.S. Case No.179 of 2021, was lodged against the Petitioners by the Block Education Officer, Kuarmunda on the self-same charges of submitting a fake OTET certificate. Once the case went to trial, the learned trial Court considered all 14 prosecution witnesses and other documentary evidences produced by the Prosecution, and vide Judgment and Order dated 29.04.2024 passed by learned C.J.-cum-Judicial Magistrate First Class, Biramitrapur in T.R. No.225 of 2024 arising out of G.R. Case No.1437 of 2021 the trial Court has acquitted both the Petitioners. The learned senior counsel, drawing attention of this Court to the concluding paragraphs of the aforesaid judgement, stated that the Court below has unequivocally observed that no incriminating material has been found against the Petitioners, that not a single ingredient of the offences alleged against the Petitioners has been proved, and that the prosecution has failed to prove its case against the accused persons, i.e. the present Petitioners. d) Again referring to the aforementioned judgement of acquittal dated

29.04.2024, the learned senior counsel submitted that the Petitioners were neither appointed on the basis of the OTET certificate, nor have they derived any benefit from such certificate. To corroborate his contentions, the learned senior counsel referred to paragraph-6 of the judgement dated

29.04.2024, specifically the statement by one Sri Sadanand Pradhan, the Block Education Officer, who is the P.W No.6 and the Informant, and one Additional Block Education Officer, the P.W No.1, who have categorically stated before the learned trial Court that in the year 2008, i.e. at the time of initial appointment of the Petitioners as Gana Sikshyaks, qualification in the OTET examination was not an eligibility criteria for being appointed. The same P.W No.6 has also stated that non-submission of such OTET certificate would not affect the service of the Petitioners, that the Petitioners have not received any financial and professional benefit from such allegedly fake OTET certificate, and that no departmental proceeding was initiated against the Petitioners prior to their dismissal. Similarly, learned senior counsel, adverting to the testimony of the P.W. No.2, submitted that the Petitioners have been in service since 2008 for more than a decade, maintaining an unblemished record, with no allegation of any misconduct or any other adverse imputation ever having been made against them. e) Next, clarifying the facts leading up to the allegations of the Petitioners submitting fake OTET certificates, the learned senior counsel referred to paragraph-15 of the judgement of the trial court dated

29.04.2024 and stated before this Court that the entire case against the Petitioners was instituted on the complaint received by one unconnected person, an RTI activist namely Abhimanyu Barik. It was submitted that the stranger-Abhimanyu Barik had made enquiries, through RTI, into the OTET examination results of the Petitioners and prior to the receipt and verification of the OTET certificate by the Board of Secondary Education, the said Abhimanyu Barik had raised a complaint regarding genuineness of the certificate. However, the aforesaid person has neither been examined by the IO, nor was he arrayed by the prosecution as a witness. Therefore, It was submitted that the very basis of the allegation against the Petitioner is wholly unfounded. f) Next, the learned senior counsel contended that Show Cause Notices were issued to both the Petitioners on 25.08.2021, to which the Petitioners have submitted their replied on 13.09.2021 denying all allegations. However, after receiving such reply, without following the due procedure prescribed under the O.C.S. (CCA) Rules, 1962, without issuing any charge sheet, without conducting any enquiry, without examining or cross-examining the petitioners, and without giving them any opportunity of being heard, the Petitioners were removed from their service on 21.09.2021 (for the 1st Petitioner) and 16.09.2021 (for the 2nd Petitioner) in gross violation of the principles of natural justice and Article 14 of the Constitution of India. g) To further corroborate his contentions, the learned senior counsel has placed strong reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ram Lal v. State of Rajasthan and others reported in (2024) 1 SCC 175, and contended that the Hon’ble Apex Court has categorically held that where a person has been acquitted in a criminal case on the self-same charges that formed the basis of a departmental punishment, the order of dismissal/disengagement is liable to be set aside and the person is entitled to reinstatement. Learned senior counsel submits that that the cases of both the petitioners are squarely covered by the ratio laid down in Ram Lal’s case (supra), as the charges resulting in the departmental action of removal from service and the criminal proceeding were identical and that the Petitioners have been acquitted by the trial Court. h) Additionally, the learned senior counsel contended that this Court, having already quashed their respective removal orders in the prior petitions filed by the Petitioners, had directed the concerned authorities to take fresh decisions on their reinstatement claims keeping in mind the ratio in Ram Lal (supra). Despite multiple such orders by this Court on previous occasions, the Opposite Party-authorities have persisted in rejecting their claims on the same grounds, thereby acting in a contumacious and arbitrary manner that indicates malafide intentions. Lastly, it has been submitted that in the meantime the Petitioners have both once again appeared in and qualified the OTET Examination.

10. In addition to the common contentions above, the following arguments have been advanced specifically with regard to the Petitioner in W.P.(C) No.6795/2025; a) Significantly, by the time of her removal, the Petitioner had already been regularized as a Primary School Teacher Level-V (Ex-Cadre) with effect from 01.03.2017, i.e. after completion of eight years of service as Gana Sikshyak, under Order No.125 dated 04.01.2018 of the District Education Officer, Sundargarh, at Annexure-2. She was therefore a regular Government employee at the time of her dismissal which makes the breach of procedural safeguards under the O.C.S. (CCA) Rules, 1962 all the more egregious. b) The Petitioner also refers to the protracted history of non- compliance by the Block Education Officer, Kuarmunda, who despite the directions of the Director of Elementary Education dated 27.03.2023 to re-examine the matter under the O.C.S. (CCA) Rules, 1962, passed an order dated 27.07.2023 upholding the original dismissal without issuing any charge sheet, without conducting any fresh inquiry, and without serving any notice on the petitioner, thereby persisting in the non- adherence to the established procedure.

11. Likewise, with regard to the 2nd Petitioner, i.e. the Petitioner in W.P.(C) No.12944 of 2025, it has been submitted that; a) As a Gana Sikshyak who had completed more than thirteen years of service, she was fully eligible to be regularized as an Elementary Level-V Teacher in terms of Govt. Notification dated 22.12.2016. She prays not only for reinstatement but also for regularization as Elementary Level-V Teacher from the date of her eligibility in terms of the said Notification. b) The petitioner specifically highlights the conduct of the Collector, Sundargarh (Opp. Party No.3) who, instead of complying with the order of this Hon'ble Court dated 21.01.2025 passed in W.P.(C) No.24589/2024 directing reinstatement, took the impermissible step of initiating a Misc. Case No.16/2025, passing a fresh rejection order dated 28.03.2025, at Annexure-12, and directing the DEO to file a Writ Appeal against this Court's own order, thereby arrogating to himself an appellate authority over the High Court, which is wholly impermissible. Even the revised order dated 18.06.2025, at Annexure-12(a), passed pursuant to the observation of this Hon'ble Court is, in substance, the same rejection order with only the last portion deleted, and with no notice given to the petitioner. It was submitted that this conduct flies in the face of explicit direction by this Court and calls for intervention. CONTENTIONS OF THE STATE-OPPOSITE PARTY

12. Heard Mr. U. C. Jena, learned Additional Standing Counsel for the State, perused the Counter Affidavit filed by the Opposite Party No.5-Block Education Officer, Kuarmunda in W.P.(C) No.6795 of 2025, later adopted in W.P.(C) No.12944 of 2025. The Opposite Party-State has opposed the Petitioners’ stance by advancing the following arguments; a) The learned Additional Standing Counsel, at the outset, submitted that in both matters the OTET pass Certificates produced by the respective petitioners were verified by the Secretary, Board of Secondary Education, Odisha and found to be false, fabricated, and not genuine. In the case of the 1st Petitioner (W.P.(C) No.6795/2025), the Board vide its letter No.612 dated 13.08.2021 officially certified that the OTET certificate produced by the her was false and fabricated, and that she had not qualified OTET-2019. A similar certification was also made in the case of the 2nd Petitioner (W.P.(C) No.12944/2025). The learned ASC further submitted that only after considering the show-cause replies submitted by the Petitioners, and after examining the cases of the Petitioners thoroughly, the DEO-cum-DPC, SS, Sundargarh vide his order dated 16.09.2021 (in W.P.(C) No.12944/2025), and the BEO, Kuarmenda vide the order dated 21.09.2021 (W.P.(C) No.6795/2025) have disengaged the Petitioners from service. b) The learned ASC, at this point referred to the engagement orders dated 02.08.2008 and 08.08.2008, wherein both the Petitioners were appointed as Gana Sikhyakas, and contended that one of the condition of appointment, condition No.10, was that their engagements would be cancelled if any fraudulent testimonial is detected in future, and criminal prosecution would follow c) Further, the learned ASC submitted that that the standard of proof in criminal proceedings, i.e. proof beyond reasonable doubt, is materially different from and higher than the standard applicable in departmental proceedings, where preponderance of probability suffices. It was submitted that forgery of the OTET pass certificate is an independent and conclusive basis for disciplinary action, wholly separate from the criminal proceedings, and that such confirmed documentary falsification of the certificate is sufficient to sustain dismissal under the preponderance of probability standard applicable in disciplinary proceedings. d) Referring to the judgement of acquittal dated 29.04.2024, the learned ASC submitted that Petitioners' acquittal in the criminal Court was due to the failure on the part of the Prosecution to prove the Petitioners' knowledge of the certificate's falsity beyond reasonable doubt. As has been contended previously, such standard is not applicable to departmental proceedings. The learned ASC contended that the confirmed fact that the certificate was fake, combined with the fact that the Petitioners submitted the fake certificates for obtaining service benefits while fully knowing that they had not appeared in or passed the OTET examination, constitutes sufficient misconduct in a departmental context even if not provable to criminal standards. e) The State argued that the ratio of Ram Lal’s case (supra) is not applicable to the case of the Petitioners. It was argued that in Ram Lal (supra), the genuineness of the certificate in question remained inconclusive, i.e. no issuing authority had certified it as forged, and there was no conclusive independent evidence of fraudulent intent. Therefore, the Supreme Court reinstated Ram Lal on the basis that the acquittal, combined with the absence of independent evidence of forgery in the departmental proceedings which left no material to sustain the dismissal. By contrast, in the present batch of writ petitions the OTET certificates have been officially verified and certified as fake by the Board of Secondary Education, Odisha, which is also the very authority that issues such certificates. This constitutes independent and conclusive evidence of the forgery of the certificates in question that was absent in Ram Lal’s case (supra). f) To corroborate his arguments further, the learned ASC relied on the dictum of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Airports Authority of India v. Pradip Kumar Banerjee (Civil Appeal No.8414 of 2017, decided on

04.02.2025), and submitted that the ratio in this case squarely applies to the facts at hand, where a confirmed fake certificate forms the basis of dismissal, and that the acquittal in the criminal court does not erase the disciplinary violation when the document's falsity has been officially and independently confirmed by the Board of Secondary Education, Odisha. g) Furthermore, with regard to the claim of the Petitioners that they had no knowledge of the certificates being fake, the learned ASC posits that such contention is not credible since neither of the Petitioners provided the EMS Speed Post registration number details through which they claimed to have received the certificate, and the Petitioner in W.P.(C) No.6795/2025 also claimed to have verified her result on a “random website” without providing its domain name. These omissions, the State argued, cast serious doubt on the Petitioners' version of events. It is further argued that the Petitioners, knowing fully well that they had not qualified the OTET examination, submitted fabricated certificates to obtain service benefits which clearly constitute an intent to deceive. The learned ASC further submitted that the nature of the misconduct, i.e. submitting a confirmed fake certificate, goes to the root of integrity and trustworthiness of a government servant and is sufficient for dismissal under the Service Conduct Rules, regardless of the outcome of the criminal proceedings. It was stated that the acquittal in the criminal court does not and cannot erase this disciplinary violation.

13. Apart from the aforesaid common heads of arguments advanced by the State-Opposite Party against the two Petitioners in the present batch of writ petitions, the learned ASC has also made the following contentions specifically with regard to the 1st Petitioner (i.e. the Petitioner in W.P.(C) No.6795 of 2025); a) Alluding to the provisional appointment of the Petitioner as Level- V Assistant Teacher (Ex-Cadre) w.e.f 01.03.2017 vide the order dated

04.01.2018, the learned ASC submitted that the regularization order dated

04.01.2018 also contained a condition that the appointment would be cancelled or terminated if any submitted testimonial is subsequently found to be fraudulent. Therefore, the Petitioner's dismissal is in accordance with the express terms of her own engagement and regularization. b) Moreover, learned ASC also submitted that a formal departmental proceeding was initiated against the petitioner vide Memorandum No.650 dated 10.04.2023 under Rule 15 of the O.C.S. (CCA) Rules, 1962, with charges of gross misconduct, violation of Government guidelines, misappropriation of Government money, dereliction of duty, and violation of Government Servant Conduct Rules. The departmental proceeding concluded with the order dated 27.07.2023, which censured the petitioner, found her guilty of violation of Government rules by submitting a fake OTET pass certificate thereby proving misconduct and doubtful integrity as a Government servant, and sustained the original order of dismissal dated 21.09.2021.

14. Likewise, particularly with regard to the Petitioner in W.P.(C) No.12944 of 2025, the learned ASC contended that at present, a Writ Appeal has been filed before this Court bearing D-W.A. No.20822 of 2022, against the order dated 07.01.2025 passed by this Court in W.P.(C) No.5345 of 2021. Apart from that, the Government in School and Mass Education Department, has taken steps to file writ appeal against order dated 21.01.2025 passed in W.P.(C) No.24589 of 2024, wherein this Court had disposed of the said Writ Petition in terms of the order dated 07.01.2025 in W.P.(C) No.5345 of 2021 and quashed the rejection order dated 07.08.2024.

15. In light of the above contentions, the learned ASC for the State- Opposite Party submitted that the present batch of Writ Petitions is wholly devoid of any merit and, as such, is liable to be dismissed forthwith. ANALYSIS OF THE COURT

16. The present batch of Writ Petitions have both been filed by Petitioners who, after being engaged as Gana Sikhyaks in 2008, have been disengaged from their service on the allegation that they have produced fake OTET pass certificates to obtain service benefits. Since the questions of fact and law arising in both the petitions are inextricably intertwined, they were heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment.

17. It is the Petitioners’ immutable stance that they have received their OTET pass certificates in post, from the Board of Secondary Education itself and, as such, they have had no occasion to tamper with the certificates. Moreover, the Petitioners maintain that the actual OTET pass certificate is in no way relevant for the purpose of their service and that they have been disengaged from their posts without following the due procedure laid down in the O.C.S. (CCA) Rules, 1962, which renders their disengagement wholly illegal. Naturally, the Opposite Party-State posits that the disengagement of the Petitioner is not only legal but also justified since the Petitioners have knowingly produced OTET pass certificates that have been verified by the Board of Secondary Education, Odisha as fake. The Opposite Party-State maintains that the engagement orders of the Petitioners clearly stipulated that they shall be disengaged from service and a criminal proceeding initiated against them in the event the Petitioners ever submit any fraudulent testimonials. It is in the aforesaid background that the Petitioners have approached this Court with the prayer set-out hereinabove. It is pertinent to clarify at the outset that the present batch of writ petitions is not the first approach of the Petitioners to this forum. Both Petitioners have been constrained to litigate their reinstatement claims through multiple rounds of writ proceedings before this Court, the detailed history of which is recapitulated separately below.

18. On a bare perusal of the respective impugned disengagement orders, it can be seen that the primary reason for rejecting the Petitioners’ prayer for reinstatement is that the OTET pass certificates produced by them has been held to be fake, and that the ratio laid down in Ram Lal (supra) has been held to be not applicable to the case of the Petitioners since they stand is on a “completely different” footing. Moreover, although the impugned orders mention the fact of acquittal of the Petitioners in the criminal case instituted on self-same allegations, however such a fact has not been taken into consideration while making the final decision. Therefore, this Court is required to examine whether the initial dismissal of the Petitioners, which the subsequent impugned order supplements, was vitiated by non-compliance with the prescribed procedure under the O.C.S. (CCA) Rules, 1962 and whether the merits of the acquittal in the criminal proceedings, read together with the dictum in Ram Lal (supra), entitle the Petitioners to reinstatement.

19. It is undisputed in both cases the Petitioners were removed/dismissed from service in September 2021 without the issuance of any formal charge-sheet, without the constitution of any inquiry committee, without conducting any departmental proceeding, and without affording either Petitioner any meaningful opportunity of being heard or to present their case before the competent authority. Further, it is evident that the show-cause notices that were issued to the Petitioners on 25.08.2021, were replied to by the Petitioners on 13.09.2021, wherein they have denied all the allegations levelled against them. However, within a week, the Opposite Parties proceeded to dismiss the Petitioners from service without undertaking any further inquiry. Although the Opposite Party-State has contended that due procedure under the O.C.S. (CCA) Rules, 1962 was followed, no material has been placed on record to demonstrate that any inquiry committee was constituted or that the Petitioners were afforded an opportunity of hearing in accordance with law.

20. So far as the infliction of a major penalty (dismissal or removal from service) is concerned, the O.C.S. (CCA) Rules, 1962 prescribes a detailed procedure that is to be mandatorily followed. Rule 15 of the said Rules requires the initiation of a formal inquiry by the appointment of an Inquiring Authority, the delivery of a charge sheet, the statement of imputations, and the list of documents and witnesses relied upon by the disciplinary authority. Moreover, a copy of such report must be furnished to the Government servant, and he must be afforded an opportunity to make his representation thereon before the disciplinary authority passes any order imposing a major penalty. The breach of any of these steps vitiates the entire disciplinary proceeding. In State of Orissa v. Dr. (Miss) Binapani Dei, reported in AIR 1967 SC 1269, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that the right to be heard before an adverse civil consequence is imposed is not merely a statutory requirement but flows from the fundamental principles of natural justice. Likewise, it must be borne in mind that Article 21, as expansively interpreted by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India, reported in (1978) 1 SCC 248, incorporates within its fold the requirement that any State action affecting civil consequences must conform to a fair, just and reasonable procedure. In the sphere of disciplinary proceedings, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Managing Director, ECIL v. B. Karunakar, reported in (1993) 4 SCC 727 and Union of India v. Mohammad Ramzan Khan, reported in (1991) 1 SCC 588 held that furnishing a copy of the inquiry report to the delinquent employee before the disciplinary authority records its conclusions on punishment constitutes an essential facet of the reasonable opportunity contemplated under Article 311(2) of the Constitution. The Court further clarified in B. Karunakar (supra) that non-supply of the inquiry report amounts to a breach of principles of natural justice, though the ultimate order would be liable to be set aside where such denial has caused prejudice to the delinquent employee. Further, in Roop Singh Negi v. Punjab National Bank, reported in (2009) 2 SCC 570, the Hon’ble Supreme Court reiterated that disciplinary findings must rest upon legally admissible evidence and adherence to fair procedure, and cannot be sustained on mere suspicion or unproved allegations.

21. In the present cases, none of these steps were followed before the original removal/dismissal in September 2021. No charge sheet was ever issued nor was any Inquiring Authority ever appointed or any representation invited from the Petitioners. In fact, in W.P.(C) No.6795 of 2025 the Opposite Party No.2 has issued a specific direction, vide the letter dated

27.03.2023 at Annexure-11 therein, to the Opposite Party No.5 (in W.P.(C) No.6795 of 2025) to institute a proper Disciplinary Proceeding as per the O.C.S. (CCA) Rules, 1962. However, there is nothing on record to suggest that the same was carried out.

22. At this point, reference may be had to the counter affidavit by the Opposite Parties No.5 who has stated that a disciplinary proceeding was indeed instituted against the Petitioner on 10.04.2023, and culminated on

27.07.2023 in her dismissal. At annexure-L/5 to the Counter, there is a memorandum of the charges, article of the charges, statement of imputation of misconduct, and a memo of evidence issued to the 1st Petitioner. Such order dated 27.07.2023, at Annexure-12 to the W.P.(C) No.6795 of 2025, reveals that after consideration of the enquiry report dated 25.07.2023 and the representation of the 1st Petitioner, the BEO, Kuarmunda has sustained the initial order of dismissal dated 21.09.2021, which, as has been established herein, was passed illegally without following the due procedure. It is also pertinent to mention herein that the aforesaid order dated 27.07.2023 of the BEO, Kuarmunda has been set-aside by the order dated 18.06.2024 of a Coordinate Bench of this Court in W.P.(C) No.14355 of 2024, with a direction to reconsider the Petitioner’s claim of reinstatement afresh in light of Ram Lal’s dictum (supra). Pursuant to such direction of the learned Coordinate Bench, the Opposite Parties have again rejected the claim of the Petitioner vide the impugned order dated 13.02.2025, which is the subject matter of the present writ petition. The sum and substance which emerges from the foregoing is that the initial dismissal of the Petitioner in September 2021 was, as established above, plainly illegal for non-compliance with the mandatory procedure under the O.C.S. (CCA) Rules, 1962. Such illegality was sought to be cured by a subsequent disciplinary proceeding, culminating in the order dated 27.07.2023, which sustained the original dismissal. However, the said order dated 27.07.2023 has itself been set aside by a Coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 18.06.2024. Therefore, the impugned rejection order dated 13.02.2025, passed pursuant to the order dated 18.06.2024 of the learned Coordinate Bench, is premised upon a legally non-existent foundation.

23. Specifically, regarding the 2nd Petitioner [W.P.(C) No.12944 of 2025], who remained a contractual Gana Sikshyak without having been regularised prior to her removal, in contradistinction to the 1st Petitioner, who had been regularised as a Primary School Teacher Level-V (Ex-Cadre) prior to her dismissal, this Court deems it pertinent to clarify that her non- regularised contractual status does not, by itself, deprive her of procedural protection where the order of removal is stigmatic and punitive in character. It is well-settled that Article 311(2) of the Constitution, in terms, applies to persons holding civil posts under the State, and its direct invocation in the case of a contractual employee may depend on the peculiar facts of a case. However, the principles underlying Article 311(2), that an employee against whom a finding of misconduct is arrived at must be given notice of the charges and a reasonable opportunity to defend herself, flow not merely from that provision alone but from the broader constitutional guarantee of fairness under Articles 14 and 16, and from the common law principles of natural justice. These protections cannot be defeated simply by the label of "contractual" employment, once the substance of the impugned action is punitive. The foundational principle in this regard was laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the Hon’ble Supreme Court’s dictum in Parshotam Lal Dhingra v. Union of India, reported in 1957 SCC OnLine SC 5, wherein it was held, at paragraph 28, that even if the Government has, by contract or under the rules, the right to terminate the employment without going through the procedure prescribed for inflicting the punishment of dismissal or removal or reduction in rank, the Government may, nevertheless, choose to punish the servant and if the termination of service is sought to be founded on misconduct, negligence, inefficiency or other disqualification, then it is a punishment and the requirements of Article 311 must be complied with. This broader application of the principle was confirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Swati Priyadarshini v. The State of Madhya Pradesh & Ors., reported in 2024 INSC 620, wherein a contractual employee under the Sarva Sikhysa Abhiyan was stigmatically terminated and the Hon’ble Apex Court upheld the decision of the learned Single Judge who had observed that termination of the service of the employee sans regular enquiry is illegal in law. Similarly, in U.P. State Road Transport Corporation & Ors. v. Brijesh Kumar & Anr., reported in 2024 INSC 638, the Hon’ble Supreme Court, in paragraph 19, observed that a stigmatic order of termination of contractual service cannot be passed without following the principles of Natural Justice, thereby reiterating that the procedural obligation to conduct a fair enquiry before stigmatically terminating an employee attaches to the character of the action, and is not displaced by the contractual nature of the employment. In the case of the 2nd Petitioner, her removal was expressly and exclusively premised upon the allegation that she had submitted a fake OTET certificate, i.e. a charge of misconduct going directly to her integrity as a public servant. The disengagement order is, therefore, plainly stigmatic and punitive in character, regardless of its form or label. Accordingly, the O.C.S. (CCA) Rules, 1962 ought to have been followed in her case as well, and the failure to do so constitutes a violation that is common to both the Petitioners. Thus, the initial dismissal of the Petitioners in September 2021 is vitiated by patent illegality and non-compliance with the prescribed procedure.

24. At this juncture, this Court considers it apposite to briefly recapitulate the litigation history culminating in the present batch of writ petitions. So far as the 1st Petitioner is concerned, the present proceeding marks her fourth approach before this Court. Her first writ petition, W.P.(C) No.31847 of 2021, was disposed of with a direction to avail the appellate remedy before the Director, Elementary Education, Odisha. Pursuant thereto, the Director, vide communication dated 27.03.2023, directed the Block Education Officer, Kuarmunda, to re-examine the matter in accordance with the provisions of the O.C.S. (CCA) Rules, 1962. However, instead of undertaking such reconsideration in its true spirit, the Block Education Officer merely reaffirmed the original order of dismissal vide order dated

27.07.2023. The 1st Petitioner was consequently constrained to institute W.P.(C) No.14355 of 2024, wherein this Court, vide order dated 18.06.2024, quashed the said order dated 27.07.2023 and expressly directed the Opposite Parties to take a fresh decision guided by the ratio laid down in Ram Lal (supra). Even thereafter, since there was no compliance, the Petitioner filed CONTC No.6702 of 2024, which came to be disposed of on 28.01.2025 with a further direction to record compliance within one month. Despite the aforesaid sequence of orders, the BEO, Kuarmunda, by the impugned order dated 13.02.2025, once again rejected the Petitioner’s claim on grounds substantially identical to those already disapproved by this Court.

25. The litigation trajectory of the 2nd Petitioner is much too similar. Upon this Court directing, in W.P.(C) No.17206 of 2024, that a fresh decision be taken in light of her acquittal in the criminal proceeding, the concerned Opposite Party rejected her representation afresh, thereby necessitating the institution of W.P.(C) No.24589 of 2024. This Court, vide order dated

21.01.2025, again quashed the rejection order and directed reconsideration in light of the order dated 07.01.2025 passed in W.P.(C) No.5345 of 2021. However, instead of implementing the aforesaid directions, the Collector- cum-Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad, Sundargarh, initiated Misc. Case No.16 of 2025 before himself and proceeded to pass yet another rejection order dated 28.03.2025, in effect assuming unto himself the role of an appellate authority over the orders of this Court. The said authority further directed the District Education Officer to prefer a Writ Appeal against this Court’s order. The revised order dated 18.06.2025 that followed is, in substance, merely a reiteration of the earlier rejection order, with only the concluding portion directing the filing of an appeal against this Court’s order having been deleted. Moreover, the revised order itself came to be passed without issuance of notice to the Petitioner and thus stands independently vitiated for breach of the principles of natural justice.

26. In view of the aforesaid litigation history, this Court is constrained to observe that the conduct of the Opposite Parties, viewed cumulatively, discloses a deliberate and sustained pattern of non-compliance with judicial directions. On each occasion that this Court has interfered with the rejection orders and directed a fresh consideration, the authorities concerned have merely returned with another order founded upon the same or substantially similar grounds, effecting only cosmetic alterations while leaving the substance of the decision entirely untouched. Such conduct, in the considered view of this Court, amounts to a conscious disregard of the constitutional authority vested in this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. As such, the impugned orders are, apart from all other infirmities discussed herein, liable to be set aside on the ground that they have been passed in conscious and deliberate non-compliance with the binding directions issued by this Court in the earlier writ proceedings, seemingly guided by a pre- determined intent to deny the Petitioners the reliefs to which they appear entitled to.

27. So far as the genuineness of the OTET certificate is concerned, the State-Opposite Party submitted that the certificates have been verified as fake by the Board of Secondary Education. In this regard, the Opposite Parties have referred to the notification dated 13.08.2021 of the Secretary, Board of Secondary Education wherein the photocopies of the OTET certificates produced by the Petitioners have been held to be false and fabricated. However, the Petitioners have fought back with the contention that in the criminal proceeding instituted against them on the self-same allegations, the trial Court has acquitted the Petitioners since the Opposite Parties were unable to prove their case. It is clear from the record that a criminal trial was initiated against the Petitioners in T.R. No.225 of 2024 arising out of G.R. Case No.1437 of 2021 on the self-same charges as the departmental action taken against the Petitioners. In the said criminal trial, the Prosecution introduced fourteen witnesses and upon examination of such Prosecution witnesses the trial Court found no incriminating material against either of the Petitioners to establish the commission of offences under Sections 465 and 471 of the IPC. On an examination of the said judgement dated 29.04.2024, it transpires that the P.W No.6, i.e. the Block Education Officer, Kuarmunda has admitted that Petitioners have not drawn any increment or any service benefit on the basis of the impugned OTET certificate. The BEO, Kuarmunda has also admitted that it is a standard practice for certificates of public examinations to be dispatched to candidates through postal channels, and that a candidate who receives such a certificate by post from the official issuing authority cannot reasonably be expected to doubt its authenticity. The BEO, Kuarmunda (P.W. No.6) and the P.W No.1 (Additional Block Education Officer) have both also stated that the OTET certificate was not a necessary criterion for appointment in 2008. While acquitting the Petitioners, the learned Court below has observed that the prosecution have been unable to introduce any incriminating material against the Petitioners, and has failed to establish the case against the Petitioners under sections 465/471 of the IPC.

28. Therefore, it is clear that in the criminal proceeding on the self- same allegations, the Opposite Parties were unable to show conclusively that the Petitioners had forged the OTET certificates. Although the notification issued by the Board on 13.08.2021 prima facie suggests that the photocopies of the OTET certificates submitted by the Petitioners were inconsistent with the records maintained by the Board, the said notification merely points towards the existence of forgery and does not, ipso facto, establish the Petitioners’ involvement, complicity, or conscious knowledge thereof. More importantly, since it stands established that the certificates were received through official EMS postal channels directly from the issuing authority, which, as admitted by the Block Education Officer (P.W. No.6), is the standard practice and absolves the candidate receiving such a certificate by such means from reasonably doubting the certificate’s authenticity, it cannot be safely concluded that the Petitioners had knowingly forged and utilised the said certificates.

29. While it is settled law that a mere acquittal in a criminal court will not, by itself, confer on the employee a right to reinstatement or any other service benefit (see Deputy Inspector General of Police and Anr. v. S. Samuthiram, reported in (2013) 1 SCC 598), the position changes materially when the charges in both the departmental proceeding and the criminal proceeding are identical in nature, and the evidence, witnesses, and circumstances are the same or substantially overlapping [see para 12 of Ram Lal (supra); paragraphs 13 and 22 of M. Paul Anthony v. Bharat Gold Mines Ltd., reported in (1999) 3 SCC 679; and G.M. Tank v. State of Gujarat, reported in (2006) 5 SCC 446]. In this context, the Petitioners have relied on the dictum of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ram Lal v. State of Rajasthan, bearing (2024) 1 SCC 175. On a perusal of the aforesaid judgement, this Court finds that the facts in Ram Lal bear a close resemblance to the facts in the present case. In the specific facts of Ram Lal (supra), the Supreme Court found that the criminal court had not merely afforded the benefit of doubt, instead it had examined the original school mark-sheet, the prosecution witnesses and positively found that the date of birth recorded therein was the date Ram Lal had claimed, and that there was no correction or manipulation. In other words, the charge that Ram Lal had altered his date of birth was found to have been not merely unproven but demonstrably false on the evidence. Having regard to this finding, the Hon’ble Supreme Court set aside the dismissal and directed his reinstatement with consequential benefits. In the present case also, the learned trial Court after examining fourteen prosecution witnesses including the very informant, returned a positive finding of no incriminating material against the Petitioners. Similar to Ram Lal’s case (supra), the learned Court below in the present case has comprehensively held that the Prosecution has failed to establish the case against the Petitioners. Significantly, the informant in the case, the P.W.6- Block Education Officer, has admitted on oath that the Petitioners have not actually derived any service benefit from the certificates, that the certificates were received by them through official postal channels, and that he had not noticed any misconduct on their part during their entire service tenure. Ergo, it can very well be observed that the Petitioners were acquitted by the trial Court not on a mere benefit of doubt or procedural lapse, but on merits, after a thorough examination of all the evidence which the Prosecution produced in an attempt to prove that the Petitioners had forged such certificate.

30. In a similar vein, the judgement dated 24.03.2023 of this Court in Smt. Nirmala Sahoo v. State of Odisha & Ors., bearing W.P.(C) No.25947 of 2022 may also be relied on. The Petitioner in the said case had been disengaged from her post, without following the due procedure, upon an allegation of being involved in an offence under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. Subsequently, the Petitioner appeared in the trial and was acquitted therein. Despite such acquittal however, the Opposite Parties therein rejected the application of the Petitioner for regularisation. This Court, on a thorough examination of the subject matter observed that the only allegation against the petitioner-Nirmala Sahoo was her involvement in the vigilance case, and the prosecution having failed to prove the charges, the allegation was found to be false, and, as a result, the disengagement order could not be sustained. It was also held therein that the Petitioner’s acquittal in the criminal proceeding was on merits and not on a mere technicality. Also, given the fact that there was no material on record which would raise any doubt on the integrity of the Petitioner-Nirmala Sahoo, and since the criminal court has returned a clear verdict of acquittal on merits, it would not be open to the employer to substitute its subjective assessment of integrity in place of the considered judicial verdict of a competent criminal court.

31. As a counter-argument, the State-Opposite Party has placed strong reliance on the recent judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Airports Authority of India v. Pradip Kumar Banerjee, bearing Civil Appeal No.8414 of 2017, decided on 04.02.2025. The State has argued that the aforesaid case clearly establishes that a criminal acquittal, particularly one on benefit of doubt, does not automatically entail reinstatement, that departmental proceedings are independent of criminal proceedings, and that the standard of proof in disciplinary proceedings is preponderance of probability and not proof beyond reasonable doubt. This Court does not dispute the general propositions of law stated in Airports Authority of India (supra) since the principles enumerated therein are well-settled principles that have been consistently reiterated in the corpus of service law jurisprudence. The principle that departmental proceedings and criminal proceedings can co- exist and that the result of one does not automatically determine the result of the other is unimpeachable as a statement of law.

32. However, the application of Airports Authority of India (supra) to the facts of the present cases is wholly misplaced, for reasons that are both factual and doctrinal. Firstly, the respondent in the aforesaid case was charged with demanding and accepting bribe, which is a grave misconduct going to the heart of public service integrity. The criminal acquittal in that case was specifically found by the Supreme Court to have been granted on benefit of doubt due to insufficient evidence rather than on a positive finding that the alleged misconduct had not occurred. On a contrary, the present case involves allegation of forging a certificate which, as per the informant’s own admission, has not extended any service benefits to the Petitioners. Secondly, in Airports Authority of India (supra), a full departmental inquiry was held with all prescribed procedural steps followed and the disciplinary authority reached its findings on the basis of an objective evaluation of the evidence primarily relying upon the testimony of the Trap Laying Officer, which was substantially corroborated by other departmental witnesses. The Hon’ble Supreme Court found no procedural infirmity in such departmental inquiry and no material illegality in the findings. The situation in the present matter is the diametric opposite since the original dismissal of the Petitioners in September 2021 was, as has been discussed hereinabove, without any formal departmental inquiry. Thirdly, the Hon’ble Supreme Court specifically observed that, in an intra-court appeal, a Division Bench may interfere with the judgment of a learned Single Judge only where such judgment is perverse or suffers from an apparent error of law. Since the Division Bench, in that case, did not record any such finding and instead proceeded to re-appreciate the evidence while reversing the decision of the learned Single Judge, the Hon’ble Supreme Court set aside the impugned judgment of the Division Bench. The factual and legal matrix of the present case stands on an entirely different footing and, therefore, the aforesaid reasoning has no application herein.

33. Ergo, this Court is of the view that that in the present context, the reliance on Airports Authority of India (supra) and Ram Lal (supra) must be contextualised correctly. The common principle that emerges from a reading of both judgments is that the court must examine the substance of the criminal acquittal, not merely its formal label. Airports Authority of India (supra) establishes that an acquittal granted on benefit of doubt, where the prosecution merely failed to meet the higher criminal standard, does not automatically confer a right to reinstatement. Ram Lal (supra), on the other hand, establishes that where an acquittal effectively disproves the charge on the merits, as opposed to merely failing to prove it, the court in judicial review is warranted to grant relief, since the factual foundation of the dismissal stands dismantled. Ergo, where the acquittal is on merits, as in Ram Lal (supra) and the present case, then such a scenario does indeed call for the court to intervene in judicial review and grant relief if the outcome would otherwise be unjust and oppressive. Reading both judgments together, the applicable principle is that a court in judicial review must examine the substance of the acquittal, not merely its label. As such, the dictum in Airports Authority of India (supra) is distinguishable on facts of the present case and does not assist the Opposite Parties.

34. This Court now shifts its attention to the condition No.10 in the engagement orders of the Petitioner, which the Opposite Parties have placed considerable reliance on, which provides that engagement shall stand cancelled upon detection of any fraudulent testimonial submitted by the Gana Sikshyaks concerned. It is argued that since the OTET certificates have been certified as fake by the Board of Secondary Education, Odisha, cancellation follows as an automatic consequence. This Court is unable to accept such a contention, primarily because the word "fraudulent" carries in itself a well- settled legal requisite for both knowledge and intent. A testimonial cannot be said to have been "fraudulently submitted" unless the person submitting it had knowledge of its falsity and intended to deceive the receiving authority (section 17 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872). In Ram Chandra Singh v. Savitri Devi, reported in (2003) 8 SCC 319, while dealing with an instance of fraudulent misrepresentation, the Hon’ble Apex Court clarified that misrepresentation itself amounts to fraud and that it is a fraud in law if a party makes representations which he knows to be false, and injury ensues therefrom although the motive from which the representations proceeded may not have been bad. In the present cases, the Petitioners received their OTET certificates by post through EMS Speed Post from the Board's own official dispatch channel and the P.W. No.6-Block Education Officer, who is also the complainant, has himself admitted before the trial Court that such postal dispatch is standard practice and that a candidate receiving a certificate through official channels cannot reasonably be expected to doubt its authenticity. He further admitted that the Petitioners derived no financial or service benefit from the certificates. On this evidence, the attribution of fraudulent intent to the Petitioners remains insupportable. Accordingly, this Court holds that Condition No.10 of the engagement orders, and the analogous condition in the regularization order of the 1st Petitioner, cannot be invoked to sustain the dismissal of the Petitioners, and the reliance of the Opposite Party-State on these conditions is rejected.

35. Next, specifically regarding the Petitioner in W.P.(C) No.12944/2025, there is the additional issue of her regularisation, or, more precisely, the inaction on the part of the Opposite Parties in regularising her service. On a perusal of the records, it is undisputed that the Petitioner- Sandhyarani Pallauri was engaged as Gana Sikshyak in August 2008 and joined service on 12.08.2008. At the time of her removal in September 2021, she had completed over thirteen years of uninterrupted service as a Gana Sikshyak. Moreover, it is the notification dated 22.12.2016 of the S&ME Department, Government of Odisha, which provides for the requisite criteria to be fulfilled for a Gana Sikshyak to be regularised as a Level-V Assistant Teacher (ex-cadre). There is nothing on record to suggest that the Petitioner- Sandhyarani Pallauri does not qualify any of the criteria mentioned therein. So far as the OTET pass certificate is concerned, para 2(b) of the aforesaid notification dated 22.12.2016 provides that a Gana Sikshyak shall be required to pass the OTET examination within 31.03.2019 to be eligible for further increment after 31.03.2019. Similarly, the allegation of the OTET pass certificate being forged by the Petitioner has been completely dismissed by the trial Court. Moreover, the Block Education Officer, Kuarmunda has himself stated before the trial Court that non-submission of such certificate would not affect the service of the Petitioner and that such OTET certificate is not an eligibility criteria for getting appointment. Therefore, considering the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Secretary, State of Karnataka v. Uma Devi, reported in (2006) 4 SCC 1 (and the subsequent decisions in Jaggo & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors., reported in 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3826 and Shripal & Anr. v. Nagar Nigam, Ghaziabad, reported in 2025 SCC OnLine SC 221) and the earlier decision of this Court in Smt. Nirmala Sahoo v. State of Odisha & Ors., bearing W.P.(C) No.25947 of 2022, judgment dated 24.03.2023, this Court is of the view that the Petitioner- Sandhyarani Pallauri ought to have been regularised in her service as Level-V Assistant Teacher (Ex cadre).

36. Having regard to the aforesaid analysis of this Court, on a perusal of the case records, the submissions by both parties, the Counter Affidavit by the Opposite Party No.5 and the Rejoinder thereto, on a consideration of the fact that the trial court after a thorough evaluation of the entirety of the evidence produced by the prosecution-Opposite Parties acquitted the Petitioners in the criminal case that was based on substantially and materially self-same allegations as the departmental action, further keeping in view the statement of the Block Education Officer, Kuarmunda that the OTET certificates not only have no effect on the service of the Petitioners but also do not constitute an eligibility criteria for the appointment of the Petitioners, taking note of the fact that both the Petitioners were initially demonstrably dismissed without following the due procedure laid down in the O.C.S. (CCA) Rules, 1962, and that both the Petitioners have once again appeared for and qualified the OTET examination in the meantime, and keeping in view the decision in Ram Lal (supra), Smt.Nirmala Sahoo (supra) and the earlier orders by the coordinates Benches of this Court, the cumulative effect of these considerations leaves this Court in no doubt that the claims of the Petitioners are well-founded. Accordingly, this Court holds that the impugned rejection orders dated 13.02.2025, at Annexure-19 of W.P.(C) No.6795 of 2025, and orders dated 28.03.2025 & 18.06.2025, at Annexures-12 and Annexure-12(a) respectively to W.P.(C) No.12944 of 2025, are illegal and unsustainable in law. Furthermore, as has been analyzed in the preceding paragraphs, in the case of the 1st Petitioner, the initial illegal dismissal of September 2021 was sought to be cured by the subsequent disciplinary proceeding of 2023, which, instead of conducting a genuine de novo inquiry, merely sustained the original void order. That subsequent order dated

27.07.2023 has itself been set aside by the learned Coordinate Bench, leaving the Opposite Parties without any legally valid foundation upon which to sustain the dismissal of the 1st Petitioner. As regards the 2nd Petitioner, no such curative disciplinary proceeding was ever conducted, and her original disengagement stands equally vitiated for non-compliance with the prescribed procedure. The impugned rejection orders are therefore set aside.

37. The Opposite Parties are directed to; Firstly, reinstate the Petitioner-Pragnya Paramita Swain (W.P.(C) No.6795 of 2025) as Elementary Level-V Teacher (Ex-Cadre), being the regularized post held by her at the time of her dismissal, by treating her as having been in continuous service from the initial date of her dismissal; Secondly, reinstate the Petitioner-Sandhyarani Pallauri (W.P.(C) No.12944 of 2025) to the post held by her at the time of her initial dismissal; Thirdly, extend to both the Petitioners all the consequential service and financial benefits as is due and admissible to them, subject to there being no surviving legal impediment to the same. Let the aforesaid exercise be carried out within a period of six weeks from the date of this judgement.

38. Furthermore, the Opposite Parties are directed to issue the necessary order(s) of regularization in favour of the Petitioner-Sandhyarani Pallauri [in W.P.(C) No.12944 of 2025], regularizing her appointment as an Elementary Level-V Teacher in terms of Government Notification No.25290 dated 22.12.2016, provided there exists no other legal impediment thereto, with effect from the date on which she originally became eligible for such regularization under the aforesaid Notification. The said exercise shall be completed within a period of six weeks from the date of her reinstatement in service in terms of the aforesaid directions of this Court.

39. The Writ Petitions are hereby disposed of. However, there shall be no order as to costs. (A. K. Mohapatra) Judge Orissa High Court, Cuttack The 22nd May, 2026/Debasis Aech, Secretary.