The High Court
Case Details
Order No. 17. IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C) No.1466 of 2014 Pitabas Bara State of Odisha -versus- …. Petitioner Mr. A. Mohanty, Advocate …. Opposite Parties Mr. P.C. Das, A.S.C. CORAM: JUSTICE A.K.MOHAPATRA
Decision
ORDER 12.02.2024 I.A. No.1287 of 2024 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual/Physical Mode). 2. This interlocutory application has been filed by the Petitioner with a prayer to amend the writ petition in terms of the schedule of the interlocutory application. 3. On perusal of the said amendment application, this Court observes that the Petitioner by way of amendment seeks to substitute the para-1 of the writ petition thereby challenging the order dated 28.10.2013 passed by the CDMO, Puri, Opposite Party No.3. Further, corresponding prayer in the writ petition is being sought to be amended by incorporating a specific prayer in that regard to quash the impugned rejection order dated 28.10.2013. 4. Considering the fact that the writ petition is pending since 2014, the prayer for amendment is allowed. // 2 // 5. Accordingly, consolidated copy of the writ petition be filed in course of the day. W.P.(C) No.1466 of 2014 6. Heard the learned counsel for the Petitioner as well as learned Additional Standing Counsel appearing for the State- Opposite Parties. Perused the writ petition as well as the documents annexed thereto. 7. The present writ petition has been filed by the Petitioner with the following prayers:- “It is, therefore prayed that this Hon’ble Court may graciously be pleased to issue Rule Nisi calling upon the opposite parties, more specifically O.P. No.3, to show cause as to why the impugned order of rejection dated 28/10/2013 rejecting petitioner’s representation in service as letter dated 03/03/2014 of the O.P. No.3 under Annexure-11 shall not be quashed/set aside and the said O.P. No.3 shall not be directed to reinstate the petitioner in Govt. service with all service benefits.” for reinstatement communicated vide 8. Learned counsel for the Petitioner, at the outset, contended that the present writ petition was initially filed challenging the order dated 13.09.2013 passed by the Odisha Administrative Tribunal in O.A. No.1262(c) of 2013 under Annexure-10 to the writ petition. He further contended that the order passed by the Tribunal has already been implemented in the meantime. Therefore, the Petitioner does not want to press the writ petition, so far as it relates to challenging the order passed by the Tribunal. Instead the Petitioner has amended the prayer in the present writ petition and, accordingly, the Petitioner has now challenged the order of dismissal dated 21.03.2013 under Annexure-6 to the writ petition. Page 2 of 5 // 3 // 9. In the aforesaid context, learned counsel for the Petitioner submitted that due to implication and subsequent conviction of the Petitioner, the Petitioner was dismissed from service. Subsequently, the Petitioner has been honourably acquitted by the lower appellate court vide judgment dated 28.06.2013 passed in Crl. Appeal No.11 of 2013 under Annexure-8 to the writ petition. 10. Learned counsel for the Petitioner further contended that the lower appellate court has acquitted the Petitioner as the prosecution has failed to establish its case beyond all reasonable doubts and that the learned Magistrate was not correct in its finding that the appellant-Petitioner was guilty of the offences alleged against him and, hence, the conviction and sentence order passed by the trial court was set aside by the lower appellate court. He further contended that no further appeal or revision has been preferred against the judgment of the lower appellate court by the State- Opposite Parties. As such, the order of the learned appellate court has attained finality. Learned counsel for the Petitioner also contended that no disciplinary proceeding whatsoever has been initiated against the Petitioner, nor is any disciplinary proceeding pending against the Petitioner. In such view of the matter, the learned counsel for the Petitioner submitted that the Opposite Parties be directed to consider the case of the Petitioner for reinstatement of his service as expeditiously as possible, as had he continued in service and had no dismissal order been passed against the present Petitioner under Annexure-6 to the writ petition, then the Petitioner would have retired by the end of next month. 11. Learned counsel for the State, on the other hand, contended that order under Annexure-6, whereby the Petitioner was removed Page 3 of 5 // 4 // from service, was passed basing upon the judgment of conviction by the learned trial court. Therefore, the Opposite Parties are not committed any illegality in removing the Petitioner from service. He further contended that although the Petitioner has been acquitted by the lower appellate court, however on the basis of such acquittal, reinstatement in service is not automatic. He further contended that the Opposite Parties have to reconsider the case of the Petitioner in the light of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court and the established law. In such view of the matter, learned Additional Standing Counsel submitted that he shall have no objection in the event this Court remands the matter to the authorities to consider the case of the Petitioner in accordance with law within a stipulated period of time. 12. Considering the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the respective parties and on a careful examination of the background facts as well as keeping in view the fact that the Petitioner has been acquitted by the lower appellate court vide judgment under Annexure-8 to the writ petition, this Court deems it proper to dispose of the writ petition by remanding the matter to the Opposite Party No.2 to consider the case of the Petitioner for reinstatement in service by taking into consideration the aforesaid acquittal order under Annexue-8. Opposite Party No.2 is further directed to consider the case of the Petitioner keeping in mind the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Ram Lal v. State of Rajasthan & Others (Civil Appeal No.7935 of 2023, arising out of SLP(C) No.33423 of 2018) and shall take a final decision within a period of four weeks from the date of communication of a copy of Page 4 of 5 // 5 // this order. The final decision so taken be communicated to the Petitioner within a week from the date of taking such decision. 13. With the aforesaid observation and direction, the writ petition is disposed of. (A.K. Mohapatra) Judge Debasis Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: DEBASIS AECH Designation: Secretary Reason: Authentication Location: OHC, CUTTACK. Date: 15-Feb-2024 19:32:24 Page 5 of 5