The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C) No. 35334 of 2025 In the matter of an application under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India. ……………… Nelson Bada …. Petitioner -versus- State of Odisha & Anr. …. Opposite Parties For Petitioner :
Legal Reasoning
Appeal No.5497 of 2025) as well as order passed by this Court in the case of Hemanta Kumar Bhoi vs. State of Odisha & Ors. (W.P.(C)
Arguments
Mr. G.R. Sethi, Advocate For Opp. Parties : Mr. M.R. Mohanty Addl. Govt. Advocate PRESENT: THE HON’BLE JUSTICE BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Date of Hearing: 12.12.2025 & Date of Judgment: 12.12.2025 --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Biraja Prasanna Satapathy, J. 1. This matter is taken up through hybrid mode. 2. Heard Mr. G.R. Sethi, learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner and Mr. M.R. Mohanty, learned Addl. Govt. Advocate appearing for the Opp. Parties. // 2 // 3. The present writ petition has been filed inter alia with the following prayer:- “It is therefore humbly prayed that this Hon’ble Court may graciously be pleased to admit the case, call for the records and after hearing both the parties pass the following reliefs; i. To quash the order dtd.20.11.2015 under Annexure -4. ii. To quash the order dtd.7.5.2025 under Annexure-7. iii. To direct the Opposite Parties to grant all financial and consequential service benefits to the petitioner. And pass such other order/orders as may be deemed fit and proper for the interest of justice. And for this act of kindness, the petitioner as in duty bound shall ever pray.” 4. It is contended that in the disciplinary proceeding initiated vide Sambalpur District Proceeding No. 11 of 2014 dtd.10.07.2014, Petitioner when was imposed with the punishment vide order dtd.20.11.2015 under Annexure-4, Petitioner moved an appeal under Annexure-6 on 16.10.2024. 4.1. It is contended that such an appeal was filed with delay as Petitioner was also involved in a criminal case in G.R. Case No. 1202 of 2013 on self-same issue. However, Petitioner was acquitted in the Page 2 of 9 // 3 // said criminal proceeding vide judgment dtd.10.09.2024 under Annexure-5. 4.2. Learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner accordingly contended that since the criminal proceeding which was also initiated on the self-same issue, Petitioner was acquitted, Petitioner moved the appeal with a prayer to interfere with the order of punishment passed by the disciplinary authority-Opp. Party No. 4 under Annexure-2. But only on the ground that the appeal is barred by time, Opp. Party No. 3 refused to entertain the appeal vide the impugned order dd.07.05.2025 under Annexure-7. 4.3. Learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner contended that since the appeal is filed against the order of punishment and on the self- same issue Petitioner has been acquitted in the criminal proceeding vide Judgment under Annexure-5, the appeal could not have been dismissed on the ground of delay. It is also contended that claim of the Petitioner so made in the appeal is covered by the decision of the 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 Pratap Singh Vs. The State of Bihar and Others (Civil Page 3 of 9 // 4 //
Decision
No. 27964 of 2024 disposed of on 18.09.2025). 4.4. 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.” Page 4 of 9 // 5 // 4.5. Hon’ble Apex Court in Para-47 & 50 of the decision in the case of Maharana Pratap Singh has held as follows:- 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.” 4.6. View of this Court in Para 7.1 to 7.4 of the judgment in the case of Hemanta Kumar Bhoi as cited (supra) reads as follows:- “7.1. After his acquittal, prayer of the Petitioner to get the benefit of reinstatement was rejected vide order dtd.22.04.2024 under Annexure-9, further confirmed by the appellate authority-Opposite Party No.3 vide order dtd.28.08.2024 under Annexure-12. Page 5 of 9 // 6 // 7.2. Following the decision in the case of Ram Lal so followed in the case of Maharana Pratap Singh and the extension of the benefit of reinstatement in favour of one such convicted employee after his acquittal, this Court is of the view that the ground on which claim of the Petitioner was rejected is not sustainable in the eye of law. 7.3. Therefore, this Court following the aforesaid decisions in the case of Ram Lal and Maharana Pratap Singh and the benefit extended in favour of similarly situated convicted employee, is of the view that Petitioner is eligible and entitled to get the benefit of reinstatement. 7.4. Therefore, this Court while quashing the order of dismissal dtd.30.06.2015 under Annexure-5 and rejection of the prayer for reinstatement vide order dtd.22.04.2024 and 28.08.2024 under Annexure-9 and Annexure-12, directs Opposite Party No.4 to pass an order of reinstatement in favour of the Petitioner within a period of four (4) weeks from the date of receipt of this order. The break period of service be regularized in accordance with law.” 4.7. Making all these submissions, learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner contended that the appellate authority be directed to hear and dispose of the appeal taking into account the decision as cited (supra). 5. Learned Addl. Govt. Advocate on the other hand while supporting the impugned order passed by the appellate authority, contended that Page 6 of 9 // 7 // since the appeal has been filed more than 8 years of the order of punishment passed under Annexure-4, no illegality or irregularity can be found with the impugned order passed by the appellate authority- Opp. Party No. 3. The appeal since is hopelessly barred by time, it has been rightly not entertained. 6. Having heard learned counsel appearing for the Parties and considering the submissions made, it is found that in the proceeding initiated against the Petitioner vide Sambalpur District Proceeding No. 11 dtd.10.07.2014, Petitioner was imposed with the punishment vide order dtd.20.11.2015 under Annexure-4. 6.1. As found from the record, Petitioner was also proceeded with in a criminal proceeding on self-same charges in G.R. Case No. 1202 of 2013 arising out of Mahila P.S. Case No. 24 dtd.18.06.2013 for the offence under Sec. 447/294/353/506 of the IPC. Petitioner though did not prefer an appeal after being imposed with the punishment vide order under Annexure-4 dtd.20.12.2015, but since he was acquitted in the criminal proceeding on self-same issue vide judgment dtd.10.09.2024 under Annexure-5, after such acquittal he moved the appeal by filing the same before Opp. Party No. 3 on 16.10.2024 Page 7 of 9 // 8 // under Annexure-6. However, such appeal was not entertained on the ground of delay vide the impugned order dtd.07.05.2025 under Annexure-7. 6.2. Even though this Court is of the view that the appeal was filed much after the period of limitation, but since Petitioner in the criminal proceeding, which was initiated on self-same issue has been acquitted, and matter relates to imposition of major punishment in a disciplinary proceeding initiated with similar charges, it is the view of this Court that appellate authority is required to hear the appeal and decide the same on merit, instead of rejecting the same on the ground of delay. 6.3. In view of the aforesaid analysis, this Court is inclined to quash order dt.12.05.2025 so passed by Opp. Party No. 3 under Annexure-7. While quashing the same, this Court directs Opp. Party No. 3 to take up the appeal and decide the same on merit by giving an opportunity of hearing to the Petitioner. Opp. Party No. 3 is also directed to take into consideration the judgment passed in the case of Ram Lal so followed in Maharana Pratap Singh and by this Court in the case of Hemanta Kumar Bhoi as cited supra while deciding the appeal. Petitioner is directed to provide a copy of this order along with the Page 8 of 9 // 9 // citations of the above noted cases before Opp. Party No. 3 for compliance. The appeal be disposed of as directed within a period of four (4) months from the date of receipt of this order. 7. The writ petition accordingly stands disposed of. (BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY) Judge Orissa High Court, Cuttack Dated the 12th December, 2025/Sneha Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: SNEHANJALI PARIDA Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Date: 15-Dec-2025 10:23:07 Page 9 of 9