p. 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK WP(C) No.18285 of 2025 Sudhansu Sekhar Routray …. Petitioner Represented by Adv.- Mr. B. Pujari Adv. -versus- Union of India & Ors. …. Opposite Parties Represented by Adv.- CORAM: JUSTICE DIXIT KRISHNA SHRIPAD JUSTICE SIBO SANKAR MISHRA ORDER 09.01.2026 An employee, who has been removed from service on the ground of conviction & sentence levied by the criminal Court after full-fledged trial, is seeking to challenge the order of the CAT which affirmed the orders of the authorities below. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently argues that in terms of Rule 19 of OCS (CCA) Rules 1965, conduct leading to conviction & sentence is one thing and conviction is another and therefore, unless an inquiry is held in respect of the conduct leading to conviction, mere conviction, to use his own words, conviction ipso facto would not justify removal. This is absolutely misconceived. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner very fairly submits that after conviction & sentence an appeal is filed laying a challenge thereto, and that the bail also has been granted to his client. He very fairly submits that stay of conviction has not been sought for at all. It is a cardinal principle of criminal jurisprudence that once full-fledged trial having been held, an Order No. 03. p. 2 accused is convicted & sentenced to undergo punishment, the doctrine of innocence does not avail merely because he has been enlarged on bail appeal pendente lite. This view broadly accords with the view of the Apex Court in Navjot Singh Sidhu v. State of Punjab, AIR 2007 SC 1003 In the above circumstances, the petition being unworthy of merits is liable to be rejected in limine and accordingly it is. (Dixit Krishna Shripad) Judge (S.S. Mishra) Judge Prasanta Designation: Personal Assistant