IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C) No.2619 of 2013 Sarada Prasad Behera …. Petitioner Ms. S. Patnaik, Advocate -versus- State and Others …. Opp. Parties Mr. A. Tripathy, AGA CORAM: JUSTICE BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY Order No ORDER 13.07.2026 06. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual/Physical) Mode. 2. Heard learned counsel for the Parties. 3. Petitioner has filed the present Writ Petition with the following prayer:- “Under these circumstances, it is therefore prayed that this Hon’ble Court may graciously be pleased to admit the writ application and issue Rule Nisi, calling upon the Opp. Parties to show cause as to why; i) The order dated 29.09.2012 under Annexure-1 issued by the Opp. Party No.2 shall not be declared as illegal, arbitrary and contrary to law and hence is liable to be set aside/quashed, ii) The Opp. Parties shall not be directed to reinstate the present petitioner in his place of posting i.e., Assistant Engineer, Komna Block under the district of Nuapada, iii) The action of the Opp. Parties in terminating the petitioner from his service shall not be declared as illegal, arbitrary and discriminatory.” 4. It is contended that because of implication of the petitioner in G.R. Case No.317 of 2012 and for his remaining in custody in the said criminal case, petitioner was terminated from his services vide order dated 29.09.2012, so issued by Opp. Party No.2 under Annexure-1. It is however contended that in the meantime vide judgment dated 30.03.2026, petitioner has been acquitted in the Criminal Proceeding. 4.1. It is accordingly contended that since petitioner has been acquitted in the Criminal Proceeding and was terminated because of his implication in view of the decisions 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 Appeal No.5497 of 2025) and the recent decision of this Court in the case of State of Odisha and Others Vs. Bashidhar Bariki (W.A. NO.589 of 2025), petitioner is eligible and entitled to get the benefit of reinstatement. 5. Learned Addl. Govt. Advocate however contended that since petitioner has only been acquitted vide judgment dated 30.03.2026 and he has not moved for his re-instatement, no such direction is required to be issued. 6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and considering the submission made, it is found that petitioner because of his implication in the G.R. Case No.317 of 2012 arising out of Komna P.S. Case No.109 dated 05.08.2012, he was terminated from his services vide order dated 29.09.2012 of Opp. Party No.2 under Annexure-1. Petitioner since has been acquitted in the said criminal proceeding vide judgment dated 30.03.2026 (Copy of the judgment produced in Court be kept in record.), it is the view of this Court that petitioner’s claim for re-instatement requires consideration by Opp. Party No.2. It is accordingly observed that if any such application will be moved before Opp. Party No.2 seeking re-instatement within a period of 3(three) weeks hence, Opp. Party No.2 shall take a lawful decision on the same within a period of 3(three) months from the date of receipt of such application. 6.1. It is further observed that while taking such a decision relevancy and effect of the decisions of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Ram Lal and Maharana Pratap Singh as well as the decision of this Court in the case of Banshidhar Bariki so cited (supra), be taken into consideration. Petitioner is also permitted to provide a copy of this order along with citations before Opp. Party No.2 for compliance. 7. The Writ Petition stands disposed of. (Biraja Prasanna Satapathy) Judge Basudev