IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C ) No.27897 of 2024 Sridhar Mohapatra &. Petitioner Mr. B.S. Rayaguru, Adv. -versus- State of Odisha & Others &. Opposite Parties Mr. A. Tripathy, AGA. COROM: HON9BLE THE JUSTICE BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY Order No ORDER 31.03.2026 2. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Mode. 2. Heard learned counsel appearing for the parties. 3. The present Writ Petition has been filed inter alia with the following prayer: 4. It is contended that in the proceeding initiated against the Petitioner vide Memorandum dt.18.01.2022, Petitioner not only filed his reply to the charges, but also participated in the proceeding. It is further contended that such a Proceeding was initiated only because of the implication of the Petitioner in a Criminal Proceeding, so initiated against him in OR No.10/2021-22 corresponding to 2(b)(CC) Case No.13 of 2021/Trial No.747 of 2024, in the file of learned SDJM, Parlakhemundi. 5. It is contended that even though the Proceeding was initiated because of the implication of the Petitioner p. 2 p. 2 in the Criminal proceeding, but without waiting for the disposal of the Criminal Proceeding, the Disciplinary authority-Opp. Party No.4, proceeded with the Proceeding and imposed the punishment of dismissal vide order dt.25.02.2023 under Anexure-17. Petitioner was so dismissed w.e.f 25.02.2023 and suspension period for the period from 04.11.2021 to 05.11. 2022 was treated as such. 5.1. It is contended that Petitioner thereafter though moved the Appellate authority as well as the Revisional authority, but the Appellate authority as well as the Revisional authority while dismissing the appeal and Revision vide order dt.02.08.2023 under Annexure-18 and 26.04.2024 under Annexure-20, confirmed the order of dismissal. 5.2. It is however contended that in the meantime, Petitioner has already been acquitted in the Criminal Proceeding vide judgment dt.20.06.2025, so enclosed to the Additional affidavit filed by the Petitioner. It is accordingly contended that since Petitioner has been acquitted in the Criminal Proceeding and Petitioner was so dismissed because of his implication in the Criminal proceeding, on the face of such acquittal, the order of dismissal requires a re-consideration, in view of the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Ram Lal so followed in the case of Maharana Pratap Singh. 5.3. Hon9ble Apex Court in the case of Ram Lal in Paragraphs 3,5,6,7,8,26,27 & 30 has held as follows: p. 3 p. 3 <3. The identical allegation in both the proceedings was that the Appellant altered his date of birth from 21.04.1974 to 21.04.1972 in his 8th standard marksheet. It was alleged that this was done to project himself as having attained majority at the time of the recruitment. The appellant denied the charges. xxx xxx xxx xxx 5. Five witnesses were examined in the departmental proceeding. These very five witnesses were also examined in the criminal trial, apart from eight other witnesses who were also examined at the criminal trial. The Enquiry Officer in the departmental proceeding found the charges proved and the Disciplinary Authority, by an order of 31.03.2004, dismissed the appellant from service. The Appellate Authority also dismissed the appeal. Attempts to have the order reviewed and the penalty reconsidered were also in vain. 6. At the criminal trial, the trial Court convicted the appellant for the offence under Section 420 of the IPC and sentenced him to undergo three years9 imprisonment along with a fine of Rs.5,000/-. However, the Additional District and Sessions Judge, Jodhpur (8Appellate Judge9), vide judgment dated 24.08.2007, allowed the criminal appeal and acquitted the appellant. 7. The appellant, thereafter, represented for his reinstatement. Subsequently, he filed a writ petition in August, 2008 for quashing the dismissal order dated 31.03.2004, the order of the Appellate Authority, and the orders refusing to review and reconsider the above- said orders. 8. The learned Single Judge, by his judgment dated 13.08.2008, dismissed the writ pettion by holding that the standard of proof in a criminal proceeding and departmental proceeding is different. The learned Single Judge found no infirmity in the order of the Disciplinary Authority. The writ appeal filed by the appellant has also been dismissed by reiterating the findings of the learned Single Judge and by further elucidating as to how the parameters for a judicial review against an order in a departmental proceeding are limited and circumscribed. Being aggrieved, the appellant is in appeal before us. xxx xxx xxx xxx p. 4 p. 4 26. We are satisfied that the findings of the appellate judge in the criminal case clearly indicate that the charge against the appellant was not just, <not proved= 3 in fact the charge even stood <disproved= by the very prosecution evidence. As held by this Court, a fact is said to be <disproved= when, after considering the matters before it, the Court either believes that it does not exist or considers its non-existence so probable that a prudent man ought, under the circumstances of the particular case, to act upon the supposition that it does not exist. A fact is said to be <not proved= when it is neither <proved= nor <disproved= (see Vijayee Singh and Others vs. State of U.P. (1990)3 SCC 190). 27. We are additionally satisfied that in the teeth of the finding of the appellate Judge, the disciplinary proceedings and the orders passed thereon cannot be allowed to stand. The charges were not just similar but identical and the evidence, witnesses and circumstances were all the same. This is a case where in exercise of our discretion, we quash the orders of the disciplinary authority and the appellate authority as allowing them to stand will be unjust, unfair and oppressive. This case is very similar to the situation that arose in G.M. Tank (supra). 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.= 5.4. Hon9ble Apex Court in Para-47 & 50 of the decision in the case of Maharana Pratap Singh 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 p. 5 p. 5 settled by the decision in G.M Tank (supra), since reinforced by a decision of recent origin in Ram Lal v. State of Rajasthan31 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. 6. Mr. A. Tripathy, learned Addl. Govt. Advocate on the other hand while supporting the impugned order contended that since in the proceeding so initiated against the Petitioner and by following due procedure of law, Petitioner was imposed with the punishment of dismissal, which has been confirmed by the Appellate authority as well as by the Revisional authority, no interference is called for. It is also contended that there is no allegation that Principle of natural justice has not been followed nor there is any violation of the Statutory rule. 6.1. It is also contended that since by the time Petitioner was imposed with the punishment of dismissal vide order dt.25.02.2023, so confirmed by the Appellate and Revisional authority vide order dt.02.08.2023 and 26.04.2024, the Criminal Proceeding was pending, no illegality or irregularity can be found with the order of dismissal. p. 6 p. 6 7. Having heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and considering the submission made, this Court finds that Petitioner while in service, the proceeding in question was initiated vide Memorandum dt.18.01.2022 because of the implication of the Petitioner in 2(b)(CC) Case No.13 of 2021 in the file of S.D.J.M, Parlakhemundi. It is found that prior to disposal of the Criminal Proceeding, the Disciplinary authority-Opp. Party No.4 not only proceeded with the matter, but imposed the punishment by imposing the punishment of dismissal, vide order dt.25.02.2023 under Annexure-17. Such order of dismissal has been confirmed by the Appellate authority as well as by the Revisional authority, vide orders issued under Annexures-18 & 20. 7.1. Since it is not disputed that Petitioner has been acquitted in the Criminal Proceeding vide judgment dt.20.06.2025 and the Disciplinary Proceeding was only initiated because of his implication in the aforesaid Criminal Proceeding, taking into account the acquittal of the Petitioner in the Criminal Proceeding, this Court is of the view that order of dismissal passed under Annexure- 17, so confirmed vide order under Annexures-18 & 20, requires a re-consideration. 7.2. Placing reliance on the decision in the case of Ram Lal and Maharana Pratap Singh so cited supra, this Court for the present, is inclined to quash order dt.26.04.2024, so passed by the Revisional authority- Opp. Party No.2 under Annexure-20. While quashing order dt.26.04.2024 so passed by Opp.party No.2 under p. 7 p. 7 Annexure-20, this Court remits the matter to the Revisional Authority-Opp. party No.2 to take a fresh decision, so far as order of dismissal is concerned, taking into account the fact that Petitioner has been acquitted in the Criminal Proceeding vide judgment dt.20.06.2025. 7.3. This Court further directs Opp. party No.2 to take into consideration the relevancy and effect of the judgments in the case of Ram Lal and as well as Maharana Pratap Singh, while taking a fresh decision, as directed. This Court directs Opp. party No.2 to take a fresh decision within a period of 6(six) weeks from the date of receipt of this order. Petitioner is permitted to provide a copy of this order along with the citations in the case of Ram Lal and Maharana Pratap Singh, before Opp. party No.2 for compliance. 8. The Writ Petition accordingly stands disposed of. (Biraja Prasanna Satapathy) Judge sangita