The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C) No.27431 of 2024 In the matter of an application under Article 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India, 1950. ……………… Dr. Balaram Bag …. Petitioner -versus- State of Odisha & Others …. Opp. Parties For Petitioner : Ms. A.K. Dei, Advocate For Opp. Parties : Mr. C.K. Pradhan, Addl. Govt. Advocate PRESENT: THE HONBLE JUSTICE BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY Date of Hearing: 18.09.2025 and Date of Judgment: 18.09.2025 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Biraja Prasanna Satapathy, J. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual/Physical) Mode. 2. Heard learned counsel appearing for the Parties. // 2 // 3. The present Writ Petition has been filed inter alia challenging order dtd. 16.08.2024 so passed by Government- Opposite Party No.1 under Annexure-10. Vide the said order, claim of the Petitioner to get the benefit of salary for the period he remained out of employment because of the order of dismissal passed on 16.06.2012 with the order of reinstatement passed on 31.07.2020 under Annexure-4 was rejected. 4.
Legal Reasoning
It is contended that Petitioner while continuing in service, because of his conviction and sentence in a vigilance proceeding, Petitioner was dismissed from his services vide order dtd.16.06.2012 under Annexuxre-2. However, Petitioner was acquitted by this Court vide its judgment dtd.11.09.2019 under Annexure-3. After his acquittal by this Court vide the aforesaid judgment, petitioner was reinstated in his services vide order dtd.31.07.2020 under Annexure-4. After such reinstatement, Petitioner was posted as Deputy Collector, Collectorate, Khurda vide Notification dtd.03.09.2020 under Annexure-5. Not only that vide Notification dtd.10.02.2021 under Annexure-6, Petitioner was extended with the benefit of promotion on notional basis to the rank of OAS, Grade-A(SB) w.e.f. 09.05.2011 on ad hoc basis. 4.1. However, in the meantime, Petitioner claiming payment of the salary for the period he remained out of Page 2 of 13 // 3 // employment because of the order of dismissal, made a detailed representation before Opposite Party No.1 under Annexure-8. As no decision was taken on such claim of the Petitioner, Petitioner approached this Court by filing W.P.(C) No.38938 of 2023. This Court vide order dtd.07.12.2023 when directed Opposite Party No.1 to take a decision on the Petitioner’s claim, vide the impugned order dtd.16.08.2024 under Annexure-10, Petitioner though was extended with all consequential service benefits, but he was denied the benefit of salary for the period he remained out of employment because of the order of dismissal passed on 20.06.2012 and the order of reinstatement passed on 31.07.2020. 4.2. Learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner vehemently contended that since Petitioner because of his conviction and sentence was dismissed vide order dtd.16.06.2012 and after his acquittal he was reinstated vide order dtd.31.07.2020, while extending all consequential service benefits, Petitioner should also have been allowed the benefit of pay and allowance for the period he remained out of employment. 4.3. In support of his submission, reliance was placed to a decision of this Court passed in W.A. No.441 of 2025. Placing reliance on the said judgment, it is contended that Petitioner’s claim is squarely covered by Page 3 of 13 // 4 // the said order and Petitioner is entitled to get the benefit of salary for the period he remained out of employment, because of the illegal order of dismissal passed on 16.06.2012 under Annexure-2. It is also contended that once Petitioner was acquitted in the vigilance proceeding by this Court in its judgment dtd.11.09.2019 and Petitioner was reinstated vide order dtd.31.07.2020 under Annexure-4, there is no reason not to pay the salary as due and admissible. It is accordingly contended that the impugned order is not sustainable in the eye of law. 5. Mr. C.K. Pradhan, learned Addl. Government Advocate for the State on the other hand made his submission basing on the stand taken in the counter affidavit so filed by Opposite Party No.1. 5.1. It is contended that because of his conviction and sentence in the vigilance proceeding vide judgment dtd.10.02.2012 in T.R. Case No.77 of 2007 arising out of GR Case No.20 of 1993 (V) by the learned Special Judge, (Vigilance) Jeypore, Petitioner was dismissed from his services vide order dtd.16.06.2012 of Opposite Party No.1 under Annexure-2. However, Petitioner challenging such order of conviction and sentence approached this Court by filing Criminal Appeal No.101 of 2012. This Court vide its judgment dtd.11.09.2019 under Annexure-3 while setting aside the order of Page 4 of 13 // 5 // conviction and sentence allowed the appeal. In terms of such order passed by this Court and on the prayer made by the Petitioner, Petitioner was reinstated vide order dtd.31.07.2020 under Annexure-4. 5.2. It is also contended that Petitioner also accepted the benefit of reinstatement and joined with posting as Deputy Collector, Collectorate, Khurda vide Notification dtd.03.09.2020 under Annexure-5. Not only that vide notification issued under Annexures-6 and 7, Petitioner was extended with the benefit of promotion on notional basis to different cadre. 5.3. However, claiming payment of the salary for the period Petitioner remained out of employment because of the order of dismissal passed on 20.06.2012 and order of reinstatement passed on 03.09.2020, Petitioner made a request in that regard by making a representation on 24.08.2023 under Annexure-8. Petitioner thereafter approached this Court in W.P.(C) No.38938 of 2023 and this Court vide order dtd.07.12.2023 under Annexure-8 directed Opposite Party No.1 to take a decision on the claim of the Petitioner. On consideration of the said request, Petitioner though was extended with all consequential service benefits, but since Petitioner remained out of employment because of the order of dismissal due to his conviction and sentence, prayer of the Petitioner to Page 5 of 13 // 6 // extend the benefit of salary for the period in question was rejected. 5.4. It is contended that since because of his conviction and sentence, Petitioner remained out of the employment for the period from 20.06.2012 to 03.09.2020 and such order of dismissal was never assailed till Petitioner was so reinstated on his acquittal by this Court, Petitioner is also not entitled to get the benefit of salary. 5.5. It is also contended that order of conviction and sentence so passed was never stayed by this Court while admitting the appeal in CRLA No.101 of 2012 and no such document has also been filed in that regard. Since Petitioner because of his conviction and sentence was dismissed from his service vide
Decision
order dtd.20.06.2012 and was reinstated on his acquittal vide order dtd.03.01.2020, no illegality & irregularity can be found with the rejection of the Petitioner’s claim vide the impugned order. 5.6. It is also contended that decision relied on by the learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner is not applicable to the facts of the present case, as the appellant in W.A. No.441 of 2025 was never terminated or dismissed from his services. In the said appeal, appellant therein remained under suspension till he was so reinstated. It is accordingly contended that Page 6 of 13 // 7 // since Petitioner was dismissed from his services, the decision relied on by the learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner cannot be applied to the facts of the present case. 5.7. It is also contended that since Petitioner has been extended with all service benefits, save and except the salary for the period he remained out of employment because of the order of dismissal, no illegality or irregularity can be found with the impugned order. 5.8. In support of his aforesaid submission, learned Addl. Government Advocate place reliance on the following decisions in the case of (1) Ranchhodji Chaturji Thakore vs. Superintendent Engineer, Gujarat Electricity Board, Himmatnagar (Gujarat) & Anr, reported in (1996) 11 SCC-603, (2) Krishnakant Raghunath Bibhavnekar vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors., reported in (1997) 3 SCC-636 and (3) Union of India & Others vs. Jaipal Singh, reported in (2004) 1 SCC-121. 5.9. Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Ranchhodji Chaturji Thakore in Para- 3 has held as follows:- “3. The reinstatement of the petitioner into the service has already been ordered by the High Court. The only question is whether he is entitled to back wages. It was his conduct of involving himself in the crime that was taken into account for his not being in service of the respondent. Consequent upon his acquittal, he is entitled to reinstatement for the reason that his service was terminated on the basis of the conviction by Page 7 of 13 // 8 // operation of proviso to the statutory rules applicable to the situation. The question of back wages would be considered only if the respondents have taken action by way of disciplinary proceedings and the action was found to be unsustainable in law and he was unlawfully prevented from discharging the duties. In that context, his conduct becomes relevant. Each case requires to be considered in its own backdrop. In this case, since the petitioner had involved himself in a crime, though he was later acquitted, he had disabled himself from rendering the service on account of conviction and jail. Under these circumstances, the petitioner is not entitled to payment of back wages. The learned Single Judge and the Division Bench have not committed any error of law warranting interference” incarceration in 5.10. Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Krishnakant Raghunath Bibhavnekar in Para- 4 has held as follows:- “4. Mr Ranjit Kumar, learned counsel for the appellant, contends that under Rule 72(3) of the Maharashtra Civil Services (Joining Time, Foreign Services and Payment during Suspension, Dismissal and Removal) Rules, 1991 (for short “the Rules”), the Rules cannot be applied to the appellant nor would the respondents be justified in treating the period of suspension of appellant, as the period of suspension, as not being warranted under the Rules. We find no force in the contention. It is true that when a government servant is acquitted of offences, he would be entitled to reinstatement. But the question is whether he would be entitled to all consequential benefits including the pensionary benefits treating the suspension period as duty period, as contended by Shri Ranjit Kumar? The object of sanction of law behind prosecution is to put an end to crime against the society and laws thereby intends to restore social order and stability. The purpose of the prosecution of a public servant is to maintain discipline in service, integrity, honesty and truthful conduct in performance of public duty or for modulation of his conduct to further the efficiency in public service. The Constitution has given full faith and credit to public acts. Conduct of a public servant has to be an open book; corrupt would be known to everyone. Page 8 of 13 // 9 // to the public. The very cause The reputation would gain notoriety. Though legal evidence may be insufficient to bring home the guilt beyond doubt or foolproof. The act of reinstatement sends ripples among the people in the office/locality and sows wrong signals for degeneration of morality, integrity and rightful conduct and efficient performance of public duty. The constitutional animation of public faith and credit given to public acts would be undermined. Every act or the conduct of a public servant should be to effectuate the public purpose and constitutional objective. Public servant renders himself accountable for suspension of the petitioner and taking punitive action against him was his conduct that led to his prosecution for the offences under the Penal Code, 1860. If the conduct alleged is the foundation for prosecution, though it may end in acquittal on appreciation or lack of sufficient evidence, the question emerges whether the government servant prosecuted for commission of defalcation of public funds and fabrication of the records, though culminated into acquittal, is entitled to be reinstated with consequential benefits. In our considered view this grant of consequential benefits with all back wages etc. cannot be as a matter of course. We think that it would be deleterious to the maintenance of the discipline if a person suspended on valid considerations is given full back wages as a matter of course on his acquittal. Two courses are open to the disciplinary authority, viz., it may enquire into the misconduct unless, the selfsame conduct was subject of charge and on trial the acquittal was recorded on a positive finding that the accused did not commit the offence at all; but acquittal is not on benefit of doubt given. Appropriate action may be taken thereon. Even otherwise, the authority may, on reinstatement after following the principle of natural justice, pass appropriate order including treating suspension period as period of not on duty (and on payment of subsistence allowance etc.). Rules 72(3), 72(5) and 72(7) of the Rules give discretion to the disciplinary authority. Rule 72 also applies, as the action was taken after the acquittal by which date the Rule was in force. Therefore, when the suspension period was treated to be a suspension pending the trial and even after acquittal, he was reinstated into service, he would not be entitled to the consequential benefits. As a consequence, he would not be entitled to the benefits of nine increments as stated in para 6 of Page 9 of 13 // 10 // the additional affidavit. He is also not entitled to be treated as on duty from the date of suspension till the date of the acquittal for purpose of computation of pensionary benefits etc. The appellant is also not entitled to any other consequential benefits as enumerated in paras 5 and 6 of the additional affidavit. 5.10. Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Jaipal Singh in Para- 4 has held as follows:- the department “4. On a careful consideration of the matter and the materials on record, including the judgment and orders brought to our notice, we are of the view that it is well accepted that an order rejecting a special leave petition at the threshold without detailed reasons therefor does not constitute any declaration of law by this Court or constitute a binding precedent. Per contra, the decision relied upon by the appellant is one on merits and for reasons specifically recorded therefor it operates as a binding precedent as well. On going through the same, we are in respectful agreement with the view taken in Ranchhodji [(1996) 11 SCC 603 : 1997 SCC (L&S) 491] . If prosecution, which ultimately resulted in acquittal of the person concerned was at the behest of or by itself, perhaps different considerations may arise. On the other hand, if as a citizen the employee or a public servant got involved in a criminal case and if after initial conviction by the trial court, he gets acquittal on appeal subsequently, the department cannot in any manner be found fault with for having kept him out of service, since the law obliges a person convicted of an offence to be so kept out and not to be retained in service. Consequently, the reasons given in the decision relied upon, for the appellants are in consonance with not only convincing but are reasonableness as well. Though exception taken to that part of the order directing reinstatement cannot be sustained and the respondent has to be reinstated in service, for the reason that the earlier discharge was on account of those criminal proceedings and conviction only, the appellants are well within their rights to deny back wages to the respondent for the period he was not in service. The appellants cannot be made liable to pay for the period for which they could Page 10 of 13 // 11 // not avail of the services of the respondent. The High Court, in our view, committed a grave error, in allowing back wages also, without adverting to all such relevant aspects and considerations. Consequently, the order of the High Court insofar as it directed payment of back wages is liable to be and is hereby set aside”. 6. Having heard learned counsel appearing for the Parties and considering the submissions made, this Court finds that Petitioner while continuing in service in the rank of OAS, Grade-A(SB), because of his conviction and sentence in G.R. Case No.20/93(V)/ T.R. 77 of 2007 vide judgment dtd.10.03.2012 of the learned Special Judge, (Vigilance), Jeypore, he was dismissed from his services vide order dtd.16.06.2012 under Annexure-2. However, Petitioner was acquitted by this Court vide judgment dtd.11.09.2019 in Criminal Appeal No.101 of 2012 under Annexure-3. After his acquittal and on the request made by the Petitioner he was reinstated in his services vide order dtd.31.07.2020 under Annexure-4. 6.1. It is found that Petitioner not only accepted the said order of reinstatement, but also joined in the post in question. Thereafter vide different orders, Petitioner was also extended with the benefit of promotion to different cadre, but on notional basis. 6.2. However, petitioner made a representation under Annexure-8 only on 24.08.2023 under Annexure-8 with a prayer to release the pay and allowance for the period Page 11 of 13 // 12 // he remained out of employment because of the order of dismissal i.e. 20.06.2012 to 03.09.2020, on the ground that Petitioner since was acquitted, he is entitled to get the said benefit. As no decision was taken, Petitioner approached this Court by filing W.P.(C) No.38938 of 2023. This Court vide order dtd.07.12.2023 under Annexure-9 when directed Opposite Party No.1 to take a decision on the Petitioner’s claim, vide the impugned order dtd.16.08.2024 under Annexure-10, such claim of the Petitioner was rejected. 6.3. This Court finds that Petitioner was dismissed from his services vide order dtd.16.06.2012 on his conviction and sentence vide judgment dtd.10.02.2012. Only after his acquittal vide judgment dtd.11.09.2019, Petitioner was reinstated vide order dtd.31.08.2020. 6.4. Since because of his conviction and sentence and the order of dismissal so issued, Petitioner remained out of employment for the period 20.06.2012 to 31.08.2020, placing reliance on the decisions in the case of Ranchhodji Chaturji Thakore, Krishnakant Raghunath Bibhavnekar and Jaipal Singh, so cited (supra), it is the view of this Court that Petitioner is not eligible and entitled to get the benefit of salary on the face of the extension of all consequential service benefits. The decision relied on by the learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner as per the considered view Page 12 of 13 // 13 // of this Court is not applicable to the facts of the present case as the appellant in W.A. No.441 of 2025, was never dismissed or terminated from his services and he remained under suspension till he got the benefit of reinstatement. 6.5. It is also found from the record that order of dismissal passed on 16.06.2012 was never assailed by the Petitioner nor any document is available on record showing the suspension of the order of conviction and sentence by this Court in CRLA No.101 of 2012. 6.6. Therefore, it is the view of this Court that no illegality or irregularity has been committed by the authority, Opposite Party No.1 in rejecting the Petitioner’s claim with passing of the impugned order on 16.08.2024 under Annexure-10. This Court accordingly is not inclined to interference with the said order and dismiss the Writ Petition. 7. Accordingly, the Writ Petition stands dismissed. (Biraja Prasanna Satapathy) Judge Orissa High Court, Cuttack Dated the 18th September, 2025/Subrat Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: SUBRAT KUMAR BARIK Reason: Authentication Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACK Date: 27-Sep-2025 12:52:13 Page 13 of 13