The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C) No. 31053 of 2025 In the matter of an application under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India. ……………… Surat Kumar Kuldip …. Petitioner -versus- State of Odisha & Ors. …. Opposite Parties For Petitioners : Mr. P.K. Das, Advocate For Opp. Parties : Mr. S.P. Das, Addl. Standing Counsel PRESENT: THE HON’BLE JUSTICE BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Date of Hearing: 05.12.2025 & Date of Judgment: 05.12.2025 --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Biraja Prasanna Satapathy, J. 1. This matter is taken up through hybrid mode.
Legal Reasoning
too pursuant to the order passed by this Court in W.P.(C) No. 21671 of 2022 vide the impugned order dt.06.07.2024 under Annexure-5. 6.4. Placing reliance on the decisions of the Apex Court in the case of G.M. Tank, Ram Lal & Maharanapratap Singh as cited supra and the undisputed fact that the charges in both the proceedings are same, this Court is of the view that after his acquittal in the criminal proceeding, the order of dismissal passed against the Petitioner on 09.10.2009, should have been set aside, by permitting the Petitioner to rejoin in his work. But such prayer of the Petitioner made on 03.03.2016 was rejected only vide the impugned order dt.06.07.2024 under Annexure-5, after around 8 years and in the meantime Petitioner is in the verge of his retirement. 6.5. In view of the aforesaid analysis, this Court is of the view that rejection of the Petitioner’s claim to get the benefit of reinstatement so passed by Opp. Party No. 2 on 06.07.2024 under Annexure-5, is not sustainable in the eye of law. While quashing the said order, this Court directs Opp. Party No. 4 to reinstate the Petitioner in his services, if he Page 10 of 11 // 11 // has not yet attained the age of superannuation with passing of an appropriate order within a period of two (2) weeks hence and regularize the break period of service on notional basis. 6.6. However, if on verification, it will be found that Petitioner has attained the age of superannuation, then the entire period of service from the date of dismissal till the Petitioner attained the date of superannuation be treated as duty for all purposes, but on notional basis. Petitioner accordingly be sanctioned with the pension and other pensionary benefits as due and admissible. This Court directs Opp. Party No. 4 to complete the exercise within a period of three (3) months from the date of receipt of this order.
Arguments
2. Heard Mr. P.K. Das, learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner and Mr. S.P. Das, learned Addl. Standing Counsel appearing for the Opp. Parties. // 2 // 3. The present writ petition has been filed inter alia challenging order dtd.06.07.2024 so passed by Opp. Party No. 2 under Annexure-5. Vide the said order claim of the Petitioner for his reinstatement in his service after being acquitted in the criminal proceeding vide Judgment dtd.21.09.2015 under Annexure-3 has been rejected. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner contended that Petitioner was appointed as a temporary Constable vide order dtd.01.02.1986 under Annexure-1 of Opp. Party No. 3. While so continuing a criminal proceeding was initiated against him for the offence under Sec. 420/468/471 of the Indian Penal Code in G.R. Case No. 230/1994 with the allegation that Petitioner in order to get the benefit of appointment has produced a forged S.T. caste certificate in support of his caste even though he belongs to Christian community. 4.1. Simultaneously a departmental proceeding was also initiated against him and Petitioner was placed under suspension initially. In the departmental proceeding, Petitioner was dismissed from his services vide order dtd.09.10.2009 of Opp. Party No. 4. The appeal as well as revision filed against such order of dismissal, were also rejected by the appellate authority, and by the revisional authority- Opp. Party No. 2 vide order dt.09.02.2016 under Annexure-2. Page 2 of 11 // 3 // 4.2. It is contended that by the time revisional authority-Opp. Party NO. 2 confirmed the order of dismissal vide order dtd.09.02.2016 under Annexure-2, Petitioner had already been acquitted in the criminal proceeding vide judgment dtd.21.09.2015 under Annexure-3. It is accordingly contended that, since in the criminal proceeding Petitioner was honorably acquitted and prosecution failed to prove the charges beyond all reasonable doubt vide judgment dt.21.09.2015 under Annexure-3, on the face of such order of acquittal, the revisional authority should not have confirmed the order of punishment passed by the disciplinary authority, so confirmed by the appellate authority vide order dt.09.02.2016 under Annexure-2. 4.3. It is also contended that since in the criminal proceeding and disciplinary proceeding, the charges were same, after his acquittal in the criminal proceeding, Petitioner became entitled for his reinstatement in service. In support of his submission reliance was placed to a decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of G.M. Tank Vs. State of Gujarat & Anr. reported in AIR 2006 SC 2129. 4.4. Hon’ble Apex Court in Para 31 & 32 of the judgment in the case of G.M. Tank has held as follows:- Page 3 of 11 // 4 // “31. The judgments relied on by the learned counsel appearing for the respondents are distinguishable on facts and on law. In this case, the departmental proceedings and the criminal case are based on identical and similar set of facts and the charge in a Departmental case against the appellant and the charge before the Criminal Court are one and the same. It is true that the nature of charge in the departmental proceedings and in the criminal case is grave. The nature of the case launched against the appellant on the basis of evidence and material collected against him during enquiry and investigation and as reflected in the charge sheet, factors mentioned are one and the same. In other words. charges, evidence, witnesses and circum-stances are one and the same. In the present case, criminal and departmental proceedings have already noticed or granted on the same set of facts namely, raid conducted at the appellant’s residence, recovery of articles therefrom. The Investigating Officer, Mr. V.B. Raval and other departmental witnesses were the only witnesses examined by the Enquiry Officer who by relying upon their statement came to the conclusion that the charges were established against the appellant. The same witnesses were examined in the criminal case and the criminal court on the examination came to the conclusion that the prosecution has not proved the guilt alleged against the appellant beyond any reasonable doubt Page 4 of 11 // 5 // and acquitted the appellant by his judicial pronouncement with the finding that the charge has not been proved. It is also to be noticed the judicial pronouncement was made after a regular trial and on hot contest. Under these circumstances, it would be unjust and unfair and rather oppressive to allow the findings recorded in the departmental proceedings to stand. 32. In our opinion, such facts and evidence in the department as well as criminal proceedings were the same without there being any iota of difference, the appellant of should succeed. The distinction which is usually proved between the departmental and criminal proceedings on the basis of t the approach and burden of proof would not be applicable in the instant case. Though finding recorded in the domestic enquiry was found to be valid by the Courts below, when there was an honourable acquittal of the employee during the pendency of the proceedings challenging the dismissal, the same requires to be taken note of and the decision in Paul Anthony’s case (supra) will apply. We, therefore, hold that the appeal filed by the appellant deserves to be allowed.” 4.5. Reliance was also placed to the decision of the Hon’ble Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Ram Lal Vrs. State of Rajasthan and Ors. (Civil Appeal No.7935 of 2023) so followed in the case of Maharana Page 5 of 11 // 6 // Pratap Singh Vs. The State of Bihar and Others (Civil Appeal No.5497 of 2025). 4.6. Hon’ble Apex Court in Para-13, 25 and 30 of the decision in the case of Ram Lal has held as follows:- “13. However, if the charges in the departmental enquiry and the criminal court are identical or similar, and if the evidence, witnesses and circumstances are one and the same, then the matter acquires a different dimension. If the court in judicial review concludes that the acquittal in the criminal proceeding was after full consideration of the prosecution evidence and that the prosecution miserably failed to prove the charge, the Court in judicial review can grant redress in certain circumstances. The court will be entitled to exercise its discretion and grant relief, if it concludes that allowing the findings in the disciplinary proceedings to stand will be unjust, unfair and oppressive. Each case will turn on its own facts. [See G.M. Tank vs. State of Gujarat & Others, (2006) 5 SCC 446, State Bank of Hyderabad vs. P. Kata Rao, (2008) 15 SCC 657 and S. Samuthiram (supra)] xxx xxx xxx 25. Expressions like “benefit of doubt” and “honorably acquitted”, used in judgments are not to be understood as magic incantations. A court of law will not be carried away by the mere use of such terminology. xxx xxx xxx 30. In view of the above, we declare that the order of termination dated 31.03.2004; the order of the Appellate Authority dated 08.10.2004; the orders dated 29.03.2008 and 25.06.2008 refusing to reconsider and review the penalty respectively, are all illegal and untenable.” 4.7. Hon’ble Apex Court in Para-47 & 50 of the decision in the case of Maharana Pratap Singh has held as follows:- Page 6 of 11 // 7 // from public service “47. While an acquittal in a criminal case does not automatically entitle the accused to have an order of setting following aside of his dismissal disciplinary proceedings, it is well-established that when the charges, evidence, witnesses, and circumstances in both the departmental inquiry and the criminal proceedings are identical or substantially similar, the situation assumes a different context. In such cases, upholding the findings in the disciplinary proceedings would be unjust, unfair, and oppressive. This is a position settled by the decision in G. M. Tank (supra), since reinforced by a decision of recent origin in Ram Lal v. State of Rajasthan31. xxx xxx xxx 50. The judgment acquitting the appellant reveals that the prosecution "miserably failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt" as both the informant and PW-2 refused to identify the appellant in court. This discussion confirms that the appellant’s acquittal was based not on mere technicalities. In Ram Lal (supra), this Court held that terms like "benefit of doubt" or "honourably acquitted" should not be treated as formalities. The Court’s duty is to focus on the substance of the judgment, rather than the terminology used.” 4.8. It is also contended that after his acquittal Petitioner when moved an application before Opp. Party No. 1 seeking his reinstatement on 02.03.2016 under Annexure-3, but the same was rejected by Opp. Party No. 2 vide the impugned order dtd.06.07.2024 under Annexure- 5. It is also contended that by the time claim of the Petitioner for his reinstatement was rejected vide the impugned order, Petitioner was on the verge of his retirement. 4.9. However, it is contended that since Petitioner was honorably acquitted in the criminal proceeding with similar charges, in view of Page 7 of 11 // 8 // the decisions of the Apex Court as cited (supra), claim of the Petitioner for his reinstatement could not have been rejected on the ground indicated in Annexure-5. 5. This Court vide order dtd.07.11.2025 when directed the learned Addl. Standing Counsel to obtain instruction and further time was also allowed on 24.11.2025, basing on the instruction so provided vide letter dt.03.12.2025, it is contended that order of acquittal passed vide judgment dtd.21.09.2015 has not been assailed before the higher forum and the fake certificate case has also not been forwarded to the State Level Scrutiny Committee. (Instruction so provided by Opp. Party No. 4 vide his letter dtd.03.12.2025 be kept in record.) 6. Having heard learned counsel appearing for the Parties and considering the submissions made, this Court finds that Petitioner entered into service as against the post of Constable vide order dtd.01.02.1986 under Annexure-1 so issued by Opp. Party No. 3. While so continuing a proceeding was initiated against the Petitioner in the year 1994, after his implication in the Nabarangpur P.S. Case No. 128 dtd.06.12.1994 for the offence under Sec. 468/471/420 of the Indian Penal Code. Page 8 of 11 // 9 // 6.1. Even though on self-same charges both the proceedings were initiated, but prior to disposal of the criminal proceeding, Petitioner was found guilty of the charges in the departmental proceeding and dismissed from service vide order dtd.09.10.2009. The period of suspension from 13.05.1994 to 03.11.1996 was treated as such. Appeal filed by the Petitioner against such order of dismissal before the DIG of Police, SW Range, Koraput was rejected. Petitioner thereafter moved the revisional authority-Opp. Party No. 2 challenging the order of dismissal so confirmed by the appellate authority. 6.2. But during pendency of the revision, Petitioner was honorably acquitted in the criminal proceeding vide Judgment dtd.21.09.2015 under Annexure-3. However, on the face of such acquittal in the criminal proceeding, the revisional authority-Opp. Party No. 2 vide order dtd.09.02.2016 under Annexure-2, upheld the order of dismissal so passed against the Petitioner by Opp. Party No. 4 and confirmed by the appellate authority. 6.3. However, after such dismissal of the revision Petitioner made a detailed representation before Opp. Party No. 1 on 02.03.2016 under Annexure-3 and with a request to reinstate him as Petitioner has been Page 9 of 11 // 10 // acquitted honorably in the criminal proceeding vide judgment dtd.21.09.2015 under Annexure-3. But such prayer of the Petitioner was rejected after around 8 years of making the application and that
Decision
7. The writ petition accordingly stands disposed of. (BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY) Judge Orissa High Court, Cuttack Dated the 5th December, 2025/Sneha Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: SNEHANJALI PARIDA Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Date: 11-Dec-2025 14:16:17 Page 11 of 11