IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C ) No.1871 of 2022 In the matter of an application under Article-226 & 227 of the Constitution of India ……………… Prasanta Kumar Barik …. Petitioner -versus- State of Odisha & Others …. Opposite Parties For Petitioner : M/s. N.C. Das, Adv. For Opp. Parties : M/s. P.K. Panda, Addl. Standing Counsel PRESENT: THE HONBLE MR.JUSTICE BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Date of Hearing: 16.04.2026 & Date of Judgment:16.04.2026 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ - Biraja Prasanna Satapathy, J. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Mode. 2. Pursuant to order dt.10.03.2026, learned Addl. Standing Counsel produced the instruction provided by the Commandant, OSAP, 5th BN, Baripada vide his letter dt.24.03.2026. The same be kept on record. 3. Heard learned counsel appearing for the parties. 4. The present Writ Petition has been filed inter alia with the following prayer: Under the above circumstances, it is therefore humbly prayed that this Hon'ble Court may graciously be pleased to issue notice to the Opp.parties, calling upon them to show cause, as to why this writ petition shall not be allowed, if the Opp.parties fail to show cause or submit insufficient cause, then this Hon'ble Court be graciously pleased to allow this writ petition by quashing the order dated 16.10.2018 passed by the Opp.party No.5 under Annexure-19, the order dated 14.03.2019 passed by the L.G. of Police, SAP, Odisha under Annexure-21 on the Appeal petition of the petitioner, the order dated 27.09.2019 passed by the Opp.party No.2 under Annexure-23 on the Revision Petition of the petitioner and the order dated 21.06.2021 passed by the Opp.party No.1 under Annexure- 24 to this writ application on the memorial petition of the petitioner and further the Opp.party No.5 be directed to reinstate the petitioner in his service and all the consequential/financial benefits be extended to the petitioner within a stipulated time. And pass any other order/orders, direction/ directions and/or issue any writ/writs as deem fit and proper in the interest of justice. And for this act of kindness the petitioners as in duty bound shall ever pray. 5. It is contended that while continuing as ‘A’ Coy in OSAP, 5th BN, Baripada, Petitioner because of his implication in Baripada Town P.S. Case No.196 of 2011 corresponding to G.R. Case No.797 of 2011 in the file of learned S.D.J.M, Baripada, a proceeding was initiated against him vide Charge Memo dt.29.02.2012 under Annexure-6. It is contended that the said Criminal Proceeding was initiated against the Petitioner and Petitioner faced the trial for the offence under Section 376(1)/417/506(ii) of the I.P.C. 5.1. It is contended that in the proceeding so initiated under Annexure-6, Petitioner filed his reply under Annexure-7. After such filing of the reply, one Suresh Kumar Behera was appointed as the Inquiry Officer to conduct the inquiry. It is contended that one Akshay Kumar Nayak, Assistant Commandant-cum-Company Commander “A” Company was examined as a witness by the aforesaid Inquiry Officer on 15.05.2012 as P.W.3. 5.2. However, subsequently, when the aforesaid Akshay Kumar Nayak was appointed as the Inquiry Officer to conduct the Inquiry, even though he was examined as an witness on behalf of the prosecution, and submitted the inquiry report under Annexure-8 by holding the Petitioner guilty of the charges, Petitioner raised his objection with regard to such appointment of the Akshay Kumar Nayak as the Inquiry Officer to conduct the inquiry. 5.3. It is contended that even though such an objection was raised, while submitting the reply to the 1st show cause as well as in the 2nd show-cause under Annexure- 9, but without proper appreciation of the same, Petitioner was imposed with the punishment of dismissal vide order dt.21.07.2014 under Annexure-10 of Opp. Party No.5 5.4. It is contended that challenging such order of punishment of removal passed on 21.07.2014, Petitioner when preferred an appeal before the appellate authority- Opp. Party No.4, the appellate authority vide order dt.29.01.2015 under Annexure-12, was pleased to set aside the order of punishment and restored the proceeding to the stage of issuance of the 1st show cause. After such order passed by the Appellate authority under Annexure-12, Petitioner was re-instated in his services vide order dt.5.02.2015 under Annexure-13. 5.5. However, basing on the self-same inquiry report issued under Annexure-8 and without proper appreciation of the objection raised by the Petitioner regarding appointment of Akhaya Kumar Nayak as the Enquiry Officer, Petitioner was issued with similar 2nd show-cause once again vide Annexure-17 on 04.10.2016 proposing the punishment of dismissal. Even though Petitioner submitted his reply to the 2nd show-cause by taking similar stand that since the witnesses examined by the prosecution was appointed as the Inquiry Officer, basing on the inquiry report of such Inquiry Officer, Petitioner cannot be imposed with the punishment of dismissal so proposed. Not only that Petitioner also took a specific stand that in the Criminal Proceeding so initiated and basing on which the present proceeding has been initiated under Annexure-6, Petitioner has already been acquitted vide judgment dt.20.07.2015 in Civil Appeal No.44 of 2014 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Baripada and accordingly the punishment of dismissal is required to be set aside. 5.6. However, without proper appreciation of the reply made by the Petitioner to the 2nd show-cause under Annexure-18, Petitioner was imposed with the punishment of dismissal vide order dt.16.10.2018 under Annexure-19. Opp. Party No.5 never take into consideration the acquittal of the Petitioner vide judgment dt.20.07.2015 in Criminal Appeal No.44 of 2014 of the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Baripada, even though the Disciplinary Proceeding was initiated against the Petitioner because of his implication in the criminal case. It is further contended that order of acquittal passed in the aforesaid appeal was never assailed by the State. 5.7. However, on the face of such acquittal of the Petitioner in the Criminal Proceeding and without proper appreciation of the objection raised by the Petitioner regarding appointment of Akhaya Kumar Nayak as the Enquiry Officer, and the decisions governing the field, Petitioner when was imposed with the punishment of dismissal vide order dt.16.10.2018 under Annexure-19, he again moved the Appellate authority under Annexure-20. But the Appellate Authority when rejected the Appeal vide order dt.18.03.2019 under Annexure-21, Petitioner filed a Revision before the D.G & I.G of Police-Opp. Party No.2 under Annexure-22. However, the said Revision was also dismissed vide order dt.27.09.2019 under Annexure-23. Not only that, the Memorial Petition filed by the present Petitioner before the Government-Opp. Party No.1 was also rejected vide order dt.21.06.2021 under Annexure-24. Because of such order of removal, Petitioner is going without employment w.e.f 16.10.2018 after his re- instatement vide order dt.05.02.2015. 5.8. Learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner contended that since the Disciplinary Proceeding was initiated with similar charges as was the charges in the Criminal Proceeding and as the Petitioner has been acquitted in the Criminal Proceeding vide judgment dt.20.07.2015, in view of the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Ram Lal Vs. State of Rajasthan and Others, (Civil Appeal No.7935 of 2023), so followed in the case of Maharana Pratap Singh Vs. State of Bihar, 2025(4) SLR 915 (SC), no such order of punishment could have been imposed once again, after remand of the matter, vide order dt.16.10.2018 under Annexure-19, so confirmed vide order under Annexures- 21,23 & 24. 5.9. Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Ram Lal in Paragraphs 13,25 & 30 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.” 5.10. Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Maharana Pratap Singh in Para-47 & 50 has held as follows: 47. While an acquittal in a criminal case does not automatically entitle the accused to have an order of setting aside of his dismissal from public service following 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 Rajasthan 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. 5.11. Reliance was also placed to a recent decision of this Court in WA No.589 of 2025 (State of Odisha & Others Vs. Bansidhar Bariki), disposed of on 20.03. 2026. This Court in para-1,3,7,8,10 & 21 has held as follows. 1. The present Writ Appeal arises from the judgment dated 20.11.2024 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.(C) No.2265 of 2023, whereby the learned Single Judge was pleased to set aside the order of dismissal dated 05.07.2022 passed by the Superintendent of Police, Kandhamal and the appellate order dated 13.12.2022 passed by the Inspector General of Police, Southern Range, Berhampur, and further directed reinstatement of the writ petitioner with all consequential service and financial benefits. Xxx xxx xxx 3. The facts of this case, in brief, are that the respondent was serving as a Constable in the Odisha Police establishment. On the basis of an allegation arising out of Kandhamal Sadar P.S. Case No.68 dated 29.05.2015, registered under Section 20(b)(ii)(C) read with Section 29 of the NDPS Act, he came under the scanner and was exposed to both criminal prosecution and departmental proceedings. Xxx xxx xxx 7. Notwithstanding acquittal in the criminal case, the disciplinary authority proceeded with the departmental inquiry and ultimately passed order dated 05.07.2022 dismissing the respondent from service. The disciplinary authority concluded that the respondent had committed grave misconduct unbecoming of police personnel. Xxx xxx xxx 8. The respondent preferred departmental appeal in the nature of representation before the Inspector General of Police, Southern Range, Berhampur. The appellate authority, by order dated 13.12.2022, affirmed the dismissal order without granting relief. Xxx xxx xxx 10. The learned Single Judge, upon examining the rival submissions advanced by the parties and upon careful consideration of the materials available on record, placed reliance upon the principles laid down in several judgments. Upon such consideration, the learned Single Judge came to hold that in the facts and circumstances of the present case, the acquittal recorded by the criminal court was not merely technical in nature but was based on failure of the prosecution to establish the involvement of the respondent in the alleged offence. The learned Single Judge further held that the disciplinary authorities had failed to demonstrate the existence of any independent material or evidence which could justify the imposition of punishment despite the acquittal recorded in the criminal trial. Accordingly, the learned Single Judge set aside the order of dismissal as well as the appellate order affirming the same and directed reinstatement of the respondent with all consequential service and financial benefits. Xxx xxx xxx 21. Accordingly, the Writ Appeal being devoid of merit stands dismissed. 5.12. Placing reliance on the aforesaid decisions, learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner contended that since the proceeding in question was initiated with similar charges and in the Criminal Proceeding, Petitioner has been acquitted vide judgment dt.20.07.2015, which was never assailed by the State, the order of removal passed vide order dt.16.10.2018 under Annexure-19 of Opp. party No.5 after remand of the matter as per dt.29.01.2015 under Annexure-15 is not only illegal but also not sustainable in the eye of law. Consequentially, orders passed under Annexures- 21,23 & 24 by the Appellate and revisional authority as well as by the State-Opp. Party No.1 are not sustainable in the eye of law. 5.13. It is contended that in view of the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Ram Lal so followed in the case of Maharana Pratap Singh so cited supra and the decision of this Court in the case of Bansidhar Bariki, the order of dismissal passed by Opp. Party No.5 in the departmental proceeding vide order dt.16.10.2018 under Annexure-19 and confirmed by the appellate and revisional authority under Annexure-21 & 23 and by the State-Opp. Party No.1 under Annexure-24, require interference of this Court and liable to be quashed. 5.14. It is further contended that with quashing of the impugned orders, Petitioner be allowed re-instatement with service continuity and release of all service and financial benefits as due and admissible. 6. Mr. P.K. Panda, learned Addl. Standing Counsel on the other hand while supporting the impugned orders, contended that since Petitioner was involved in a Criminal Proceeding in Baripada P.S. Case No.196(20) of 2011, the proceeding in question was initiated against him vide Charge Memo dt.29.02.2012 under Annexure-6 with similar charges. In the said Proceeding, Petitioner when was imposed with the punishment of removal vide order dt.21.07.2014 under Annexure-10, Petitioner preferred an appeal before the Appellate authority-Opp. Party No.3 under Annexure- 11. 6.1. The Appellate authority vide order dt.29.01.2015 under Annexure-12, when set aside the order of punishment and remitted the matter to the stage of issuance of 1st show-cause, Petitioner was re-instated vide order dt.05.02.2015 under Annexure-13. However, in terms of the order passed by the Appellate authority on remand, Petitioner was issued with the 2nd show-cause on 04.10.2016 under Annexure-17 and after due consideration of the reply made by the Petitioner under Annexure-18, the Disciplinary Authority-Opp. Party No.5 once again passed the order of dismissal vide order dt.16.10.2018 under Annexure- 19. 6.2. It is contended that order passed by the Disciplinary authority-Opp. Party No.5 after remand vide order dt.16.10.2018, though was challenged by the Petitioner before the appellate authority and thereafter before the Revisional Authority, but both the authorities vide order dt.18.03.2019 under Annexure-21 and 27.09.2019 under Annexure-23, rejected the Appeal and the Revision so filed by the Petitioner. Not only that, Memorial filed by the Petitioner before the Government -Opp. Party No.1 was also rejected vide order dt.21.06.2021 under Annexure-24. 6.3. It is contended that since after remand of the matter, Petitioner was given due opportunity of hearing and there is no such allegation that there was violation of any statutory provision or violation of the Principle of natural justice, no illegality or irregularity can be found with the impugned order of punishment passed under Annexure- 19, confirmed vide order under Annexures-21,23 & 24. 6.4. It is also contended that factum of proof being different in both the proceedings and Petitioner since was held guilty of the charges by the Inquiry Officer, even if Petitioner was acquitted in the Criminal Proceeding, that cannot be taken as a ground to interfere with the order of punishment passed under Annexure-19, so upheld vide order passed under Annexures-21, 23 & 24. It is accordingly contended that no interference is called for so far as the punishment is concerned. 6.5. However, basing on the instruction, it is fairly contended that the Inquiry Officer who submitted the report under Annexure-8, was examined as a witness (P.W.3) when one Suresh Kumar Behera was the Inquiry Officer. Instruction provided by the Department reads as follows: The examination of Company Commander 'A' Company i.e. Shri Akshay Kumar Nayak, Asst. Commandant as a witness (PW-3) was recorded on 15.05.2012 by Shri Suresh Kumar Behera, Asst. Commandant the then Enquiry Officer prior to transfer. Company Commander A Company was examined primarily on the appellant's deployment details at the time of the incident, but the trial revolves around the appellant's direct involvement in the criminal offence and arrest on 21.07.2011 at 2.40 PM U/S 376/417/506 IPC in the enquiry. The PW- 3 testimony though recorded fail to conclusively link deployment records to culpability, as he neither corroborate motive nor eyewitness accounts of the crime After transfer of Shri Behera to 1 IR Battalion Koraput. Shri Nayak was appointed as successor Enquiry Officer. This is a standard procedural requirement to ensure continuity of records and does not render him the Enquiry Officer for the entire enquiry. The successor Enquiry Officer. Shri Akshay Kumar Nayak, Asst Commandant, independently conducted the further enquiry in to the matter. He examined 02 out of 07 Prosecution Witnesses (PWs) cited in the Memo of Evidence as Shri Behera the then Enquiry Officer has already examined 05 PWs Shri Nayak examined PWs-4&7 i.e IIC Town P.S. Baripada and I.O Shri R.K Muduli Sub- Inspector of Police, Baripada Town PS. After completing the said examination, the Successor Enquiry Officer submitted his findings/final report to the competent authority on 15.04.2014, strictly in accordance with Rule without any procedural irregularity. Apart from this, it is to intimate that, the appellant was permitted to allow defence assistance namely Shri Bhagbat Chandra Nayak, Ex-Sub-Inspector of Police during the course of enquiry as per his representation That, the proceeding enquiry was conducted clearly demonstrates the separation of roles and compliance with principles of natural justice. In view of the above submissions, it is most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble High Court may be pleased to take the above clarification on record. 7. Having heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and considering the submission made, this Court finds that Petitioner while continuing as a “A”Coy in the establishment of Opp. Party No.5, the proceeding in question was initiated vide charge memo dt.29.02.2012 under Annexure-6, because of his implication in Baripada P.S. Case No.196 of 2011, corresponding to G.R. Case No.797 of 2011 in the file of learned S.D.J.M., Baripada. 7.1. In the said proceeding, one Suresh Kumar Behera was initially appointed as the Inquiry Officer to conduct the inquiry. During continuance of the said Suresh Kumar Behera as the Inquiry Officer, Sri Akshay Kumar Nayak, Asst. Commandant was examined as P.W.3 on 15.05.2012. 7.2. It is however found that subsequently the aforesaid Akshay Kumar Nayak was appointed as the Inquiry Officer and he submitted the inquiry report under Annexure-8 by holding the Petitioner guilty of the charges. Even though Petitioner while submitting the reply to the 2nd show-cause under Annexure-9, took such a stand and raised his objection with regard to appointment of Sri Akshay Kumar Nayak as an Inquiry Officer, on the face of his examination as a witness by the prosecution, but the same was never dealt with and Petitioner was imposed with the punishment of dismissal vide order dt.21.07.2014 under Annexure-10 of Opp. Party No.5. 7.3. The order passed on 21.07.2014 under Annexure-10 was interfered with by the Appellate authority-Opp. Party No.4 vide order dt.29.01.2015 under Annexure-12 and in terms of the said order, Petitioner was re-instated vide order dt.05.02.2015 under Annexure-13. However, subsequently, after remand of the matter and prior to disposal of the proceeding, Petitioner though was acquitted in the Criminal Proceeding vide judgment dt.20.07.2015, but Petitioner was again imposed with the self-same punishment of dismissal vide order dt.16.10.2018 under Annexure-19. The Appeal as well as the Revision filed against such order was also rejected vide order under Annexures-21 and 23 and Memorial filed before the Government-Opp. Party No.1 was also rejected vide order under Annexure-24. 7.4. Since it is not disputed that both the Proceedings were initiated on self-same charges and Petitioner has been acquitted in the Criminal Proceeding vide judgment dt.20.07.2015 in Criminal Appeal No.44 of 2014, placing reliance on the decisions of the Apex Court in the case of Ram Lal, Maharana Pratap Singh and the decision of this Court in the case of Bansidhar Bariki, so cited supra, it is the view of this Court that the order of punishment of dismissal is not sustainable in the eye of law. 7.5. This Court is also of the view that the Inquiry Officer who was earlier examined as a witness by the prosecution as P.W.3, should not have been appointed as the Inquiry Officer to conduct the inquiry. The report submitted by the Inquiry Officer by holding the Petitioner guilty of the charges under Annexure-8, as per the considered view of this Court should not have been relied on by the disciplinary authority-Opp. Party No.5. 7.6. In view of the aforesaid analysis, this Court is inclined to quash the impugned order of punishment passed by Opp. Party No.5 on dt.16.10.2018 under Annexure-19, confirmed by the Appellate authority-Opp. Party No.3 vide order dt.14.03.2019 under Annexure- 21, by the Revisional authority-Opp.party No.2 vide order dt.27.09.2019 under Anenxure-23 and by the Government-Opp. Party No.1 vide order dt.21.06.2021 under Annexure-24. 7.7. While quashing the orders under Annexures- 19,21,23 & 24, this Court directs Opp. Party No.5 to re- instate the Petitioner in his services with passing of an appropriate order within a period of 2(two) weeks from the date of receipt of this order. The break period of service starting from initial order of dismissal so passed on 21.07.2014 till re-instatement be regularised in accordance with law on notional basis. Petitioner however is not held eligible to get any financial benefit, save and except regularisation of the period on notional basis, however with service continuity. 8. The Writ Petition accordingly stands disposed of. (Biraja Prasanna Satapathy) Judge Orissa High Court, Cuttack Dated the 16th April, 2026/Sangita