Page 1 of 4. IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK WP(C) No. 16039 of 2022 Asutosh Pradhan ..... Petitioner Mr. M. Mishra, Sr. Advocate along with Mr. S.S. Parida, Advocate -versus- State of Odisha & Ors. ..... Opposite Parties Mr. M.R. Mohanty, AGA CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY ORDER 20.08.2025 Order No. 09 1. This matter is taken up through hybrid mode. 2. Additional affidavit filed on behalf of the Petitioner in Court be kept in record. Copy of the same is also served on the learned Addl. Govt. Advocate in Court. 3. Heard Mr. M. Mishra, learned Sr. Counsel appearing for the Petitioner along with Mr. S.S. Parida, learned counsel and Mr. M.R. Mohanty, learned Addl. Govt. Advocate appearing for the Opp. Parties. 4. The present writ petition has been filed inter alia challenging the order of discharge passed by Opp. Party No. 3 on 05.07.2021 under Annexure-2, further confirmed vide order dtd.08.06.2022 under Annexure-6, so passed by Opp. Party No. 4. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner contended that taking into account an incident of 29.06.2021, an enquiry was conducted by Page 2 of 4. the Addl. Deputy Commissioner of Police UPD, Bhubaneswar against the Home Guard Driver of PCR Van-29 and other staffs present in the said PCR Van. 5.1. It is contended that in the enquiry report so available under Annexure-1, though no overt act was found against the present Petitioner and all the allegations were found against the driver of the PCR Van, but basing on the said enquiry report, Petitioner was discharged from his services vide order dtd.05.07.2021 under Annexure-2 of Opp. Party No. 3. Petitioner thereafter though moved the Commandant General – Opp. Party No. 4, who happens to be the appellate authority challenging such order of discharge, but the same was rejected vide order dtd.08.06.2022 under Annexure-6. 5.2. It is contended that since in the enquiry so conducted by the Addl. Deputy Commissioner of Police available under Annexure-1, no overt act was found as against the Petitioner with regard to the alleged incident of 29.06.2021, on the face of such report, Petitioner could not have been discharged from his service. 5.3. Basing on the affidavit so filed today, it is also contended that Petitioner has got no criminal antecedent nor he is involved in any criminal case of any nature till date. 5.4. Learned Sr. Counsel appearing for the Petitioner accordingly contended that the impugned order of discharge passed under Annexure-2 further confirmed vide order under Annexure-6 are not sustainable in the eye of law and Opp. Party No. 3 be directed to reengage the Petitioner. Page 3 of 4. 6. Learned Addl. Govt. Advocate on the other hand contended that since in the alleged incident dtd.29.06.2021, Petitioner was present in the PCR van and he also participated in the alleged offence, taking into account the report available under Annexure-1, Petitioner was discharged from his services. 6.1. It is also contended that engagement of Home Guard is made for a period of three (3) years and in the meantime more than 3 years have passed since the order of discharge. In view of the same, Petitioner is not eligible to get the benefit of reengagement. 7. Having heard learned counsel appearing for the Parties and considering the submissions made, this Court finds that Petitioner was discharged from his services vide order dtd.05.07.2021 under Annexure-2 of Opp. Party No. 3, basing on the enquiry report available under Annexure-1. This Court after going through the said report, finds that no overt act has been committed by the present Petitioner in the alleged incident of dt.29.06.2021 and all the allegations have been found against the driver of the PCR van. 7.1. In view of the report available under Annexure-1, it is the view of this Court that Petitioner could not have been discharged from his engagement by Opp. Party No. 3 vide order dt.05.07.2021 under Annexure-2. Therefore, this Court is inclined to quash the order of discharge passed on 05.07.2021 by Opp. Party No. 3 under Annexure- 2 and further confirmed by Opp. Party No. 4 vide order dtd.08.06.2022 under Annexure-6. While quashing both the orders, this Court directs Opp. Party No. 3 to reengage the Petitioner as a Home Guard with passing of an appropriate order within a period of Page 4 of 4. three (3) weeks from the date of receipt of this order, by treating the Petitioner as a fresh appointee. 8. The writ petition is disposed of accordingly. (BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY) Judge Sneha