The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK WPC (OAC) No.3158 of 2018 Aparna Bairagi …. Petitioner Mr. K.K. Swain, Adv. -versus- A. State of Odisha & Others … Opp. Parties Mr. Sanjay Rath, ASC CORAM: JUSTICE BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY Order No
Decision
ORDER 15.02.2024 07. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual/Physical) Mode. 2. Heard learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner and Mr.S. Rath, learned Addl. Standing Counsel. 3. The Petitioner has filed the present Writ Petition inter alia with the following prayer. the and order impugned <Under the above circumstances, it is humbly prayed that the Original Application may be of allowed disengagement dated 14.12.2015 passed by the Collector, Malkangiri under Annexure-4 and the order dated 10.10.2017 passed by the District Welfare Officer, Malkanagiri under Anneuxre-7 may be quashed/set aside and the applicant may be reinstated her in her former post with all service benefits and her services may be regularized as regular Primary School Teacher as she has already completed for more than six years of service within a time to be stipulated by this Hon’ble Tribunal or in the alternative, any other order/orders or direction/directions may be issued so as to give complete relief to the applicant.= 3.1. It is contended that Petitioner on being duly selected, he was appointed as a Sikhya Sahayk on contractual basis vide order dt.12.12.2011 so issued by Opp. party No.2 under Annexure-1. 3.2. It is contended that while continuing as a Sikhya Sahayak in spite of his eligibility to be regularized as a Jr. Teacher on completion of three (3) years of continuous service, Petitioner continued as a Sikhya Sahayak. However, because of his involvement in a criminal case, Petitioner was disengaged from his services vide office order dt.14.12.2015 under Annexure-4. 3.3. It is contended that Petitioner in the said Criminal Case was duly acquitted vide judgment dt.06.09.2017 under Annexure-5 in Criminal Trial Case No.134 of 2014 by the learned Sessions Judge, Malkanagiri. 3.4. It is contended that after being acquitted in the criminal case, Petitioner made an application before Opp. Party No.2 under Annexure-6 series, inter alia with a prayer to reengage him as the ground on which he was disengaged, no more subsists because of his acquittal . But Opp. Party NO.2 rejected the said claim vide the impugned order dt.10.10.2017 under Annexure-7. 3.5. It is contended that since the Petitioner was disengaged from his services because of his involvement in a criminal case and he was acquitted in the meantime vide judgment under Annexure-5, Petitioner is eligible and entitled to be re-engaged, in view of the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Ram Lal Vs. State of Rajasthan and others. In the case of Ram Lal Vs. State of Rajasthan and others, reported in (2024) 1 SCC 175, Hon’ble Apex Court in Paragraphs-4 to 7 & 33 has held as follows. 4. Five witnesses were examined in the departmental proceeding. These very five witnesses were also examined in the criminal trial, apart from eight other witnesses who were also examined at the criminal trial. The enquiry officer Page 2 of 5 in the departmental proceeding found the charges proved and the disciplinary authority, by an order of 31-3-2004, from service. The appellate dismissed authority also dismissed the appeal. Attempts to have the order reviewed and the penalty reconsidered were also in vain. the appellant 5. At the criminal trial, the trial court convicted the appellant for the offence under Section 420IPC and sentenced him to undergo three years’ imprisonment along with a fine of Rs 5000. However, the Additional District and Sessions Judge, Jodhpur (<the Appellate Judge=), vide judgment dated 24-8-2007, allowed the criminal appeal and acquitted the appellant. 6. The appellant, for his thereafter, reinstatement. Subsequently, he filed a writ petition in August 2008 for quashing the dismissal order dated 31-3- 2004, the order of the appellate authority, and the orders refusing to review and reconsider the abovesaid orders. represented 7. The learned Single Judge, by his judgment dated 13- 8-2008 [Ram Lal v. State of Rajasthan, CWP No. 7779 of 2008, order dated 13-8-2008 (Raj)] , dismissed the writ petition by holding that the standard of proof in a criminal proceeding and departmental proceeding is different. The learned Single Judge found no infirmity in the order of the disciplinary authority. The writ appeal filed by the appellant has also been dismissed [Ram Lal Choudhary v. State of Rajasthan, 2018 SCC OnLine Raj 3031] by reiterating the findings of the learned Single Judge and by further elucidating as to how the parameters for a judicial review against an order in a departmental proceeding are limited and circumscribed. Being aggrieved, the appellant is in appeal before us. 33. 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. Mr. Sanjaya Rath, learned Addl. Standing Counsel on the other hand while supporting the impugned order contended that Petitioner because of his involvement in a criminal case was disengaged vide order dt.14.12.2015 under Annexure-4 and the said decision was taken in terms of the resolution issued by the SC & ST Development Deptt. on 17.10.2013 under Annexure-9. Page 3 of 5 4.1. Learned Addl. Standing Counsel contended that as provided under Clause-4.6 of the Resolution dt.17.10.2013 vide Annexure-9 read with Clause-9-XIV, Petitioner since was involved in a criminal case, he was rightly disengaged from his services. When the Petitioner claimed for his re- engagement after being acquitted in the criminal proceeding, placing reliance of the resolution dt.17.10.2013 under Annexure-9, the claim of the petitioner has been rightly rejected and it requires no interference. 5. Having heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and after going through the materials available on record, this Court finds that Petitioner was engaged as a Sikhya Sahayak vide order Dt.12.12.2011 under Annexure- 1. Petitioner joined as such on 13.12.2011 under Annexure-2. Though after three years of engagement as a Sikhya Sahayak, Petitioner was eligible to be taken as a Jr. Teacher, but Petitioner was disengaged vide order dt.14.12.2015 under Annexure-4 because of his implication in a criminal Case. As found from Annexure-5, Petitioner was acquitted from the criminal charge vide judgment dt.06.09.2017 and it is a case of clean acquittal. 5.1. Therefore, in view of the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Ram Lal Vs. State of Rajasthan and others, as cited (supra), this Court is of the view that Petitioner’s claim for re-engagement requires a fresh consideration in the light of the judgment so passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court. 5.2. In view of the same, this Court is inclined to quash the order dt.10.10.2017 so issued by Opp. Party No.2 under Annexure-7. While quashing the same, this Court directs Opp. Party No.2 to take a fresh decision on the claim of the Page 4 of 5 Petitioner for his re-engagement in the light of the decision in the case of Ram Lal as cited supra . Such a fresh decision be taken within a period of six (6) weeks from the date of receipt of this order with due intimation to the Petitioner. The writ Petition is accordingly disposed of. (Biraja Prasanna Satapathy) Judge sangita Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: SANGITA PATRA Reason: AUTHENTICAITON OF ORDER Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA Date: 19-Feb-2024 14:59:59 Page 5 of 5