IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C) No.20065 of 2021 Iswar Chandra Gumansingh …. Petitioner Mr. K.C. Sahu, Advocate -versus- State of Odisha and Others …. Opp. Parties Mr. P.K. Sahoo, ASC CORAM: JUSTICE BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY Order No ORDER 19.06.2026 I.A. No.11246 of 2026 & W.P.(C) No.20065 of 2021 02. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual/Physical) Mode. 2. Heard learned counsel appearing for the parties. 3. Even though the matter has been listed under the headings “For Orders” but on the consent of learned counsels appearing for the parties, the matter was heard at the stage of admission and disposed of by the present order. 4. It is contended that the proceeding in question was initiated against the petitioner in Puri District Proceeding No.9 of 2021 against the petitioner with self-same charges as initiated against the petitioner in the Criminal p. 2 p. 2 Proceeding in Krushna Prasad P.S. Case No.04 dated 16.01.2021. 4.1. It is contended that in the said Criminal Proceeding, petitioner in the meantime has already been acquitted vide judgment dated 05.07.2023 in G.R. Case No.179 of 2021 by the learned JMFC, Puri. It is contended that since petitioner has been acquitted in the Criminal Proceeding vide judgment dated 05.07.2023 and the Disciplinary Proceeding is in respect of similar charge, there was no necessity to proceed with the Disciplinary Proceeding 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). 4.2. However, petitioner vide Notice dated 26.05.2026, has been directed to appear before the Enquiry Officer on 10.06.2026 and the next date has been fixed to tomorrow (20.06.2026). 4.3. It is contended that since in the Criminal Proceeding, petitioner has been acquitted and the Disciplinary Proceeding is with regard to similar charge, on the face of his acquittal in the Criminal Proceeding, there was no necessity to proceed in the Disciplinary Proceeding in view of the above noted two decisions of the Hon’ble Apex Court. p. 3 p. 3 4.4. It is accordingly contended that the Disciplinary Proceeding be stayed. 5. Learned Addl. Standing Counsel on the other hand contended that if the charges are same in both the proceedings and as contended petitioner has been acquitted in the Criminal Proceeding vide judgment dated 05.07.2023, let him bring the same to the notice of Opp. Party No.4 for kind consideration and necessary action in accordance with law. 6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and considering the submission made, this Court while disposing the Writ Petition, permits the petitioner to make an appropriate application before Opp. Party No.4 with a prayer to drop the proceeding on the ground that he has been acquitted in the Criminal Proceeding vide judgment dated 05.07.2023. It is observed that if any such application will be moved before Opp. Party No.4 within a period of 2(two) weeks hence, Opp. Party No.4 shall take a lawful decision on the same within a period of 6(six) weeks from the date of receipt of such application. 6.1. Till a decision is taken, no further progress be made to the proceeding in question. Opp. Party No.4 is also directed to take into consideration the judgment passed in the case of Ram Lal and Maharana Pratap Singh so cited (supra). While taking a decision as directed. Petitioner is permitted to provide a copy of this order along p. 4 p. 4 with the citations in the case of Ram Lal and Maharana Pratap Singh before Opp. Party No.4 for compliance. 7. The Writ Petition along with I.A. stand disposed of accordingly. (Biraja Prasanna Satapathy) Vacation Judge Basudev