IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C) No.41048 of 2023 In the matter of an application under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India. ……………… Jitendra Kumar Nayak …. Petitioner -versus- State of Odisha & Ors. …. Opposite Parties For Petitioner : Mr. S.D. Routray, Advocate For Opp. Parties : Mr. A. Tripathy, Addl. Govt. Advocate PRESENT: THE HON’BLE JUSTICE BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Date of Hearing: 08.05.2026 and Date of Judgment: 08.05.2026 --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Biraja Prasanna Satapathy, J. 1. This matter is taken up through hybrid mode. 2. Heard Mr. S.D. Routray, learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner and Mr. A. Tripathy, learned Addl. Govt. Advocate appearing for the Opp. Parties. p. 2 p. 2 3. The present writ petition has been filed inter alia with the following prayer:- “It is therefore, most humbly prayed that this Hon'ble Court be graciously pleased to: i) Admit the writ application. ii) Call for the record. iii) Issue Rule Nisi calling upon the opposite parties to show cause as to why the impugned order of rejection dated 07.11.2023 under Annexure:12, the order of disengagement dated 03.06.2015 under Annexure:2 order dated 05.12.2012 under Annexure:3 and the office order dated 14.03.2018 under Annexure: 13 shall not be quashed. iv) If the opposite parties do not show cause or show insufficient cause issue a writ in the nature of certiorari or any other appropriate writ/writs, order/orders, direction/directions quashing the impugned order of rejection dated 07.11.2023 under Annexure: 12, the order of disengagement dated 03.06.2015 under Annexure:2, order dated 05.12.2012 under Annexure:3 and the office order dated 14.03.2018 under Annexure: 13. v) Issue a writ in the nature of mandamus or any other writ/writs direction/directions directing the opposite parties to re-engage / reinstate the petitioner as a Gram Panchayat Technical Assistant forthwith and further direction be issued to extend all the service and financial benefits to the petitioner from 04.06.2015. p. 3 p. 3 vi) And/or pass such other order/orders, direction/directions as this Hon'ble Court may deems fit and proper for the ends of justice. And for the said act of kindness, the petitioner as in duty bound shall ever pray.” 4. Learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner contended that Petitioner was engaged as a GPTA on contractual basis on being recommended by the Committee of Chief Engineers vide order dtd.26.03.2010 under Annexure-1. Pursuant to the said order, Petitioner joined on 26.03.2010 itself. However, because of his implication in a vigilance proceeding in Berhampur Vigilance P.S. Case No. 3 dtd.22.01.2015, Petitioner was straight away disengaged from his services vide office order dtd.03.06.2015 under Annexure-2 w.e.f.22.01.2015. 4.1. Learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner contended that in the said vigilance proceeding, Petitioner was honorably acquitted vide judgment dtd.18.12.2021 under Annexure-5 by the learned Special Judge, Vigilance, Berhampur, Ganjam in G.R. Case No. 2/2015. 4.2. It is contended that after being acquitted in the vigilance proceeding, Petitioner seeking his reengagement, moved a detailed representation before Opp. Party No. 1 on 05.05.2022 under Annexure-6. However, p. 4 p. 4 such claim of the Petitioner when was rejected vide order dtd.17.04.2023 under Annexure-7. 4.3. Petitioner challenging the same, moved this Court by filing W.P.(C) No. 18191 of 2023. This Court vide order dtd.21.06.2023 under Annexure-10 while quashing the impugned rejection, directed Opp. Party No. 2 to consider the matter afresh and take a decision with regard to claim of the Petitioner to get the benefit of reengagement. But such a direction of this Court was negatived with rejection of the Petitioner’s claim to get the benefit of reengagement vide the impugned order dtd.07.11.2023 under Annexure-12. 4.4. Learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner contended that, since Petitioner only on the ground of his implication in the vigilance proceeding was disengaged vide order dtd.03.06.2015 under Annexure-2 w.e.f.22.01.2015, after his acquittal vide judgment dtd.18.12.2021 under Annexure-5, in view of 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 Appeal No.5497 of 2025), Petitioner is eligible and entitled to get the benefit of reengagement. Not only that in view of the recent decision of this Court in the case of State p. 5 p. 5 of Odisha & Ors. vs. Banshidhar Barik (W.A. No. 589 of 2025 disposed of on 20.03.2026), Petitioner is also eligible to get the benefit of reengagement. 4.5. 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.” p. 6 p. 6 4.6. Similarly, following the decision in the case of Ram Lal Hon’ble Apex Court in Para-47 & 50 of the decision in the case of Maharana Pratap Singh Vs. The State of Bihar and Others (Civil Appeal No.5497 of 2025) 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 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.” 4.7. Similarly, this Court in Para 20 of the decision in the case of Banshidhar Barik has held as follows:- “To substantiate the aforementioned charge, the inquiry officer, as has been stated above has examined the same set p. 7 p. 7 of witnesses, whose version has been clearly discarded by a judicial finding by the Court of Addl. Sessions Judge. The important aspect of this matter is the plea of alibi taken by the respondent, which has been established by him by cogent evidence and believed by the trial court. If the plea of alibi is believed by the trial Court in the judgment dated 26.11.2018, which has attained the finality, the entire genesis of the case is washed away on facts. Therefore, it could be safely inferred that departmental proceedings and their conclusion are based on "no evidence". The learned Single Judge has rightly relied upon numerous judgments to un-justify the departmental action taken against the respondent. It is no gain saying that the judgment relied upon by the learned Single Judge is apt in the fact scenario of the present case. The eventual conclusion drawn by the learned Single Judge, setting aside the departmental action against the respondent cannot be faulted with on law as well as facts. Therefore, this is clearly not a case for interference by this Court.” 4.8. It is accordingly contended that since Petitioner was only disengaged because of his implication in the vigilance proceeding and he has been acquitted honorably vide judgment dtd.18.12.2021, in view of the decisions of the Hon’ble Apex Court as well as of this Court so cited (supra), the ground on which Petitioner’s claim has been rejected vide the impugned judgment dtd.07.11.2023 under Annexure-12 requires interference of this Court, being not sustainable in the eye of law. 5. Mr. A. Tripathy, learned Addl. Govt. 5. Mr. A. Tripathy, learned Addl. Govt. Advocate on the other hand made his submission in support of the impugned order, contending inter p. 8 p. 8 alia that since Petitioner by the time he was disengaged because of his implication in a vigilance proceeding, was continuing as a contractual GPTA, even though he was acquitted vide judgment dtd.18.12.2021, but taking into account his implication in the vigilance proceeding prior to his regularization, the authorities were not inclined to direct for reengagement of the Petitioner and accordingly his prayer for reengagement was rejected vide order dtd.07.11.2023 under Annexure- 12. Stand taken in Para 6 of the counter affidavit so relied on by the learned AGA reads as follows:- “6. That in reply to the averments made in Para-1 of the Writ Petition, it is humbly submitted that, the petitioner was engaged as GPTA (Contractual) vide Office Order No. 1152 dtd.26.03.2010 of Collector, Gajapati on recommendation from Govt. in PR&DW Deptt., Odisha on contract basis with a consolidated remuneration of Rs.5000/- per month followed by executing an agreement abiding by the terms and conditions and posted as such in Mohana Block for preparation of estimate, measurement of works and supervision of MGNREGS works and other developmental works as assigned by the authority as and when required. Whereas the petitioner was caught red handed on dtd.22.01.2015 while accepting bribe of Rs. 8000/- on demand from the complainant Sri Uma Sankar Sahu for passing of bill of the work "Construction of C.C Road from RD road to KS High School, Patigovindapur" and arrested by the vigilance team on 22.01.2015 and forwarded to the Court of Special Judge, Vigilance, Berhampur on 23.01.2015 and had been remanded to judicial custody till 05.02.2015. Since the petitioner had been p. 9 p. 9 remanded to Jail custody for more than 48 hours and comes under the definition of misconduct and is a fit case for disengagement with reference to PR Deptt. Letter No. 17-NREG- II-4057-21161/PR, dated 05.12.2012. Further, the law of natural justice was followed by the Opp. Party No. 03 by giving the petitioner an opportunity to be heard in person and being dissatisfactory explanation submitted by the petitioner on dtd.25.02.2015 and dissatisfactory reply during personal hearing on dtd.24.03.2015, 21.04.2015 and 12.05.2015, he has been disengaged from contractual service w.e.f.22.01.2015 vide Office Order No.2051 dtd.03.06.2015 of Opp. Party No. 03. Basing on the merit of the facts, instructions and orders of Govt. in GA (Vig.) Deptt., Odisha vide their letter No. 823 dt.13.04.2015 and also terms and conditions of services of contractual employees like GPTAs under MGNREGS Scheme are governed by the terms and conditions of agreement/contract, and not by OCS(CCA) Rules, 1962, the Govt. in Panchayati Raj & Drinking Water Department, Odisha the Opp. Party No. 01 has rejected / disposed off the representation dated 05.05.2022 of the petitioner and communicated to him vide their letter No.8316 dtd17.04.2023. The orders of this Hon'ble Court dated 13.10.2023 in Contempt Petition No. 7516 of 2023 filed by the petitioner alleging there in non-compliance of the order dated 21.06.2023 passed in WP (C) No. 18191 of 2023 has also been complied by the Opp. Party No.02 (Director, Panchayati Raj & Drinking Water Deptt.) rightly in accordance with the law and issued an order on dated 07.11.2023 which is communicated to all concerned vide Memo No. 25421/PR&DW, dated 07.11.2023. The copies of the Office Order No. 1152 dt.26.03.2010, Letter No. 21161 dt.05.12.2012, Office Order No.2051 dtd.03.06.2015, Disengagement Vide Order No. 823 dt.13.04.2015, Letter No. 8316 dt.17.04.2023 & Order No. 25421 dt.07.11.2023 are p. 10 p. 10 annexed herewith as Annexure-A/4, Annexure-B/4, Annexure-C/4, Annexure-D/4, Annexure-E/4 & Annexure-F/4 respectively.” 6. Having heard learned counsel appearing for the Parties and considering the submission made, it is found that Petitioner was engaged as GPTA on contractual basis vide order dtd.26.03.2010 under Annexure-1. However, because of his implication in Berhampur Vigilance P.S. Case No. 3 dtd.22.01.2015, Petitioner was disengaged vide order dtd.03.06.2015 under Annexure-2 of the Collector, Gajapati- Opp. Party No. 3 w.e.f.22.01.2015. 6.1. It is not disputed that in the aforesaid vigilance proceeding, Petitioner was honorably acquitted vide judgment dtd.18.12.2021 under Annexure-5. Since Petitioner only on the ground of his implication in the vigilance proceeding was disengaged vide order dtd.03.06.2015 and he has been honorably acquitted vide judgment dtd.18.12.2021 and the said order of acquittal has not been assailed by the State, placing reliance on the decisions of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of the Ram Lal so followed in Maharana Pratap Singh and the decision of this Court in the case of Banshidhar Barik so cited supra, this Court is of the view that, the ground on which Petitioner’s claim has been rejected, so far as reengagement is concerned, vide the impugned order dtd.07.11.2023 under Annexure-12 is not sustainable in the eye of law. p. 11 p. 11 6.2. Not only that since Petitioner has been acquitted honorably, the order of disengagement initially passed on 03.06.2015, as per the considered view of this Court is also no more sustainable. In view of the aforesaid analysis, this Court is inclined to quash order dtd.03.06.2015 so passed by Opp. Party No. 3 under Annexure-2, and so also order dtd.07.11.2023 so passed by Opp. Party No. 2 under Annexure-12. While quashing both the orders, this Court directs Opp. Party Nos. 2 & 3 to reengage the Petitioner in the post of GPTA, with passing of an appropriate order within a period of four (4) weeks from the date of receipt of this order. 6.3. Since it is contended that similarly situated GPTAs in the meantime have been regularized as Asst. Engineer, this Court directs Opp. Party Nos. 2 & 3 to extend the benefit of regularization by taking the date of engagement of the Petitioner as 26.03.2010, but only on notional basis and Petitioner will not be permitted to raise any claim towards receipt of any financial benefit. 7. The writ petition accordingly stands disposed of. (BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY) JUDGE Orissa High Court, Cuttack Dated the 8th May, 2026/Sneha