IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C) No.18939 of 2024 In the matter of an application under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India. ……………… Ranjan Kumar Behera …. Petitioner -versus- State of Odisha & Ors. …. Opposite Parties For Petitioner : Ms. B.K. Pattanaik, Advocate For Opp. Parties : Mr. C.K. Pradhan, AGA PRESENT: THE HON’BLE JUSTICE BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Date of Hearing: 05.03.2026 and Date of Judgment: 05.03.2026 --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Biraja Prasanna Satapathy, J. 1. This matter is taken up through hybrid mode. 2. Heard Ms. B.K. Pattanaik, learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner and Mr. C.K. Pradhan, learned Addl. Govt. Advocate appearing for the Opp. Parties. 3. The present writ petition has been filed inter alia challenging order dtd.29.06.2024 so passed by Opp. Party No. 2 under Annexure-8 and the order of discharge issued vide order dt.14.09.2021 under Annexure-3. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner contended that Petitioner was engaged as a Home Guard, where he joined in the year 2008. However, while so continuing and because of his implication in Olatpur P.S. Case No. 72 dtd.08.07.2021 for the offence under Sec. 341, 294, 506, 307/34 of IPC, Petitioner was discharged from his duty vide order dtd.14.09.2021 under Annexure-3. 4.1. It is contended that in the said criminal proceeding Petitioner when was acquitted vide Judgment dtd.02.02.2022 by the learned CJM-cum-Assistant Sessions Judge, Cuttack in S.T. No. 233 of 2021/ S.T. No. 50 of 2021 arising out of the aforesaid Olatpur P.S. Case No. 72 of 2021, Petitioner made a grievance before Opp. Party No. 3 with a prayer to reengage him as a Home Guard under Annexure-6. As the same was not considered, Petitioner moved Opp. Party No. 2 once again by making a representation on 19.04.2023 under Annexure-6 and thereafter approached this Court by filing W.P.(C) No. 11146 of 2024 challenging the in action in reengaging him as a Home Guard. 4.2. It is contended that this court vide order dtd.07.05.2024 under Annexure-7 placing reliance on the decision in the case of Ram Lal Vrs. State of Rajasthan and Ors. (Civil Appeal No.7935 of 2023), when directed Opp. Party No. 2 to take a decision on the Petitioner’s claim for reengagement, the same was rejected vide impugned order dtd.29.06.2024 under Annexure-8 inter alia with the following finding:- “It is well settled in law that acquittal in criminal cases do not automatically mean that a person is suitable to hold any public post. Besides, the standard of proof in a criminal case is beyond reasonable doubt, but in administrative decision making the standard of evidence is preponderance of probability. His past conduct is not suitable for consideration of his re-appointment.” 4.3. Learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner contended that since because of his implication in the criminal proceeding, Petitioner was discharged without initiation of any proceeding and without issuing any show-cause, save and except the statutory notice in terms of the Odisha Home Guard Act, 1961, the ground on which the impugned order has been passed is not tenable in the eye of law. 4.4. 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.” 4.5. 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.” 4.6. It is further contended that since Petitioner has been acquitted in the criminal proceeding and no appeal has been filed against such an order of acquittal, in view of the decision in the case of Ram Lal so followed in Maharana Pratap Singh so cited supra, Petitioner is eligible and entitled to get the benefit of reengagement as a Home Guard. It is accordingly contended that with quashing of the impugned order as well as the impugned order of discharge, appropriate direction be issued to Opp. Party Nos. 2 & 3 to reengage the Petitioner with passing of an appropriate order within a reasonable time period. 5. Learned Addl. Govt. Advocate on the other hand while supporting the impugned order, made his submission basing on the stand taken in the counter affidavit so filed. The stand taken in Para 8 & 9 of the counter affidavit reads as follows:- “8. That in reply to the averments made in Paras-5 & 6 of the writ petition it is humbly submitted that the Petitioner was discharged from Cuttack District Home Guards Organization vide District Order No. 35 dtd. 14.09.2021 (Annexure-3) for his involvement in Olatpur P.S case No.72 dtd.08.07.2021 u/s 341,294,506,307,34 IPC was arrested and forwarded to the Judicial custody. Prior to his discharge he was issued with one month notice vide letter No.251/HGS dtd.22.07.2021 (Annexure-1) to submit his explanation. He submitted his explanation that found unsatisfactory for which he was discharge from Home Guard Organization. The learned trial court acquitted him from the charges as the prosecution miserable fail to prove the charges against him. The standard of proof in criminal case is beyond reasonable doubt but the administrative decision making the standard of evidence is preponderance of probability. As such the prayer of the petitioner is not tenable. 9. That in reply to the averments made in Para7 of the writ petition it is humbly submitted that the petitioner was discharged from Home Guard Organization Vide District Order No.35 dtd. 14.09.2021 ( Annexure-3) for his involvement in Olatpur P.S. case No.72 dtd.08.07.2021 U/s 341,294,506,307,24 IPC for committing the offence with the standard of evidence. As such the prayer of the petitioner for reinstatement in service is not tenable.” 5.1. It is contended that since Petitioner was discharged from his service by giving one month notice, even if Petitioner is acquitted in the criminal proceeding, he is not eligible to get the benefit of reengagement. 6. Having heard learned counsel appearing for the Parties and considering the submission made, this Court finds that Petitioner was engaged as a Home Guard in the year 2008 vide Cuttack District Order No.03 dtd.03.05.2008. While so continuing and because of his implication in Olatpur P.S. Case No. 72 dtd.08.07.2021, Petitioner was discharged from his services in terms of Section 8 of the Odisha Home Guard Act, 1961 vide order dtd.14.09.2021 under Annexure-3. 6.1. However, it is found that Petitioner in the criminal case was acquitted vide judgment dtd.02.02.2022 under Annexure-4 and the said acquittal is not on the ground of benefit of doubt and it is a case of clean acquittal. After such acquittal in the criminal proceeding, Petitioner made several representations before Opp. Party Nos. 2 & 3, with a prayer to reengage him. When the same was not considered, he approached this Court by filing W.P.(C) No. 11144 of 2024. This Court vide order dtd.07.05.2024 under Annexure-7, relying on the decision in the case of Ram Lal so cited supra, when directed Opp. Party No. 2 to consider his claim, the same has been rejected vide the impugned order dtd.29.06.2024 under Annexure-8. 6.2. Placing reliance on the decision in the case of Ram Lal so followed in Maharana Pratap Singh and the fact that Petitioner was discharged only because of his implication in the criminal proceeding. Since Petitioner has been acquitted vide Judgment dtd.02.02.2022 under Annexure-4 and no appeal has been filed by the State challenging such acquittal, it is the view of this Court that the ground on which Petitioner’s claim has been rejected vide the impugned order under Annexure-8 is not sustainable in the eye of law. 6.3. Not only that the notice issued under Annxure-1 though was replied to by the Petitioner, but in terms of Annexure-1, and without initiating any proceeding, Petitioner was straight away discharged from service vide the impugned order dt.14.09.2021 under Annexure- 3. The ground on which Petitioner’s claim was rejected is not sustainable as no proceeding was ever intimated after issuance of Annexure-1. Therefore, this Court while quashing order dtd.14.09.2021 under Annexure-3 and order dt.29.06.2024 under Annexure-8, directs Opp. Party No. 3 to pass an order of reengagement in favour of the Petitioner within a period of two (2) weeks from the date of production of copy of this order. 7. The writ petition accordingly stands disposed of. (BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY) JUDGE Orissa High Court, Cuttack Dated the 5th March, 2026/Sneha