The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK WPC(OAC) No.2436 of 2016 Umesh Chandra Jena …. Petitioner -versus- State of Odisha & Ors. …. Opposite Parties JUSTICE BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY CORAM:
Decision
ORDER 17.01.2023 Order No 06. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual/Physical) Mode. 2. Heard Mr. P.K. Mohanty, learned counsel for the Petitioner and Mr. D.K. Mohanty, learned Addl. Standing Counsel appearing for the Opp. Parties. 3. The Petitioner has filed the present writ petition challenging the order of discharge passed by the O.P. No. 5 on 17.01.2014 under Annexure-1 and rejection of his appeal by the appellate authority vide order dtd.01.09.2015 under Annexure-6 with a further prayer to direct the Opp. Parties to reinstate the Petitioner in his service. 4. It is contended by the learned counsel for the Petitioner that the Petitioner was appointed as a Constable in the district of Keonjhar vide order dtd.29.08.2013 and after such appointment he was deputed to undergo the training. It is contended that while undergoing such training and without any prior notice and without giving any opportunity of hearing the Petitioner was discharged from his service w.e.f.17.01.2014 vide order dtd.18.01.2014 of the O.P. No. 5 under Annexure-1. Against such order of discharge though the Petitioner preferred an appeal before the O.P. No. 3, but // 2 // the appellate authority also rejected the appeal vide order under Annexure-6. The Petitioner is accordingly aggrieved by the order of discharge passed under Annexure-1 and confirmation of the same by the appellate authority under Annexure-6. 5. Learned counsel for the Petitioner contended that by the time he was appointed as a Constable though he was involved in G.R. Case No. 112 of 2008, since the matter was pending trial before the learned SDJM, Keonjhar, he did not intimate the same while making the application nor in the verification roll indicated the same, while joining as a Constable. However, it is contended that just after his appointment on 29.08.2013 and while undergoing the training the Petitioner was acquitted from the said criminal charges vide Judgment dtd.10.02.2014 under Annexure-2. 6. It is also contended that the aforesaid G.R. Case though was initiated basing on the F.I.R. lodged by the ASI of Police, Town P.S., Keonjhar, but the prosecution since failed to prove the charges the Petitioner was acquitted from the same vide Judgment under Annexure-2. It is also contended that the factum of his acquittal though was brought to the notice of the appellate authority while preferring an appeal against the order of discharge, but the appellate authority-O.P. No. 3 did not take into account the acquittal of the Petitioner in the criminal case in its proper prospective and confirm the order of discharge while passing the order at Annexure-6. It is accordingly, contended that since the Petitioner has been acquitted just after his discharge from service, the appellate authority should have taken into consideration that aspect while considering the appeal. Accordingly, learned counsel for the Petitioner prayed for interference of this Court with the impugned order of discharge Page 2 of 4 // 3 // passed under Annexure-1 and the order passed by the appellate authority under Annexure-6. 7. Mr. D.K. Mohanty, learned Addl. Standing Counsel on the other hand made his submission basing on the stand taken in the counter affidavit. It is contended that the Petitioner while making his application for his selection to the post of Constable pursuant to the advertisement issued by the State Selection Board, Odisha Police Head Quarter, he did not indicate about his involvement in G.R. Case No. 112 of 2008 and by the time the Petitioner made his application, the said criminal case was already pending against him. Since the Petitioner suppressed the said material information, subsequent to his appointment when the said fact came to the knowledge of the appointing authority, O.P. No. 5, discharged him from service vide order under Annexure-1. It is accordingly contended that since the Petitioner admittedly suppressed his involvement in the criminal case, he has been rightly discharged vide order under Annexure-1 and the appellate authority also rightly rejected his appeal vide order under Annexure-6. It is also contended that since the Petitioner was under training and his services was not confirmed, no notice was required to be issued prior to his discharge. 8. I have head Mr. P.K. Mohanty, learned counsel for the Petitioner and Mr. D.K. Mohanty, learned Addl. Standing Counsel appearing for the Opp. Parties. On their consent the matter was finally heard at the stage of admission and disposed of vide the present order. 9. Having heard learned counsel for the Parties and after going through the materials available on record, this Court finds that even though admittedly by the time the Petitioner made his application under Annexure-A, he was involved in the criminal case, but it is Page 3 of 4 // 4 // found that the Petitioner was acquitted from the charges just after his appointment and subsequent to the order of discharge passed on 17.01.2014. Since the criminal case in which the Petitioner involved was initiated basing on the F.I.R. lodged by the ASI of Police, Town P.S., Keonjhar and the prosecution failed to prove the charges, as per the considered view of this Court the appellate authority while considering the appeal of the Petitioner should have taken into consideration that aspect. But this Court finds that even though the appellate authority has taken note of the order of acquittal, but he has not considered the same in its proper perspective. 10. Therefore, taking into account the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court as well as of this Court, this Court is inclined to quash the order passed by the appellate authority under Annexure-6 and while quashing the same, remits the matter to O.P. No. 3 to decide the appeal afresh and take a lawful decision on the same. It is observed that while rehearing the matter, the appellate authority shall take into consideration the order of acquittal passed against the Petitioner under Annexure-2 and the view of the Hon’ble Apex Court as well as of this Court rendered in similar issue. The appellate authority shall take a fresh decision within a period of three (3) months from the date of receipt of this order. Petitioner is required to produce a copy of this order before O.P. No. 3 for compliance. 11. The writ petition is disposed of with the aforesaid observation and direction. (Biraja Prasanna Satapathy) Judge Sneha Page 4 of 4