IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C) No.11239 of 2026 In the matter of an application under Article 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India, 1950. ……………… Abhay Behera …. Petitioner -versus- State of Odisha & Others …. Opp. Parties For Petitioner : Mr. T. Jena, Advocate For Opp. Parties : Mr. S. Das, Addl. Standing Counsel PRESENT: THE HONBLE JUSTICE BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY Date of Hearing: 12.05.2026 and Date of Judgment: 12.05.2026 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Biraja Prasanna Satapathy, J. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual/Physical) Mode. 2. Heard learned counsel appearing for the Parties. 3. Pursuant to the order dtd.20.04.2026, learned Addl. Standing Counsel basing on the instruction so produced in Court contended that in the proceeding initiated vide Memorandum dtd.01.10.2012 in Gajapati District Proceeding No.14 of 2012, the proceeding is at the stage of issuance of 2nd show cause. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner contended that in the proceeding in question enquiry report has already been submitted since 31.02.2014 under Annxure-3. Not only that in the meantime in the criminal proceeding so initiated on similar charge, Petitioner has already acquitted vide the judgment dtd.30.01.2024. 4.1. It is accordingly contended that since the charges is both the proceeding are same and on the face of the submission of the enquiry report since 31.02.2014, the proceeding is yet to be finalized, the proceeding in Gajapati District Proceeding No.14 of 2012 is required to be quashed. 4.2. In support of his submission, learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner relied on 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) and the recent decision in the case of State of Odisha & Ors. Bansidhar Bariki (W.A. No.589 of 2025), the order of discharge so passed under Annexure- 10 by Opposite Party No.7 basing on the letter issued by Opposite Party No.6 is no more sustainable. 4.3. Hon’ble Apex Court in Para-13, 25 and 30 of the decision in the case of Ramlal 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.” 4.4. Hon’ble 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 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.” 4.5. This Court in Para-20 of the decision in the case of Banshidhar Bariki has held as follows:- “20. To substantiate the aforementioned charge, the inquiry officer, as has been stated above has examined the same set 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”. 4.6. Reliance was also placed to a decision of this Court passed on 18.09.2025 in W.P.(C) No.27964 of 2024. 4.7. It is accordingly contended that the proceeding initiated in Gajapati District Proceeding No.14 of 2012 be quashed. 5. Mr. S. Das, learned Addl. Standing Counsel for the State on the other hand contended that since the proceeding is at the stage of the 2nd show cause if some time will be allowed the proceeding will be finalized in accordance with law. 5.1. It is also contended that since the factum of proof so required to be followed in a departmental proceeding is different from criminal proceeding, the order of acquittal passed in the criminal proceeding has got no binding effect with regard to conduct of the disciplinary proceeding. 5.2. It is accordingly contended that if two months’ time will be allowed the proceeding will be disposed of. 6. Having heard learned counsel appearing for the Parties and considering the submissions made, this Court finds that the proceeding in question was initiated against the Petitioner vide Gajapati District Proceeding No.14 of 2012 inter alia with the following charges:- “CHARGE Sri Abhay Behera, Ex.IIC R. Udayagiri PS, in Gajapati district now Inspector in Koraput district is charged with gross misconduct in that:- During his incumbency as IIC, R. Udayagiri P.S., in Gajapati district, Berhampur Vigilance PS Case No. 51 dt. 30.11.10 u/s 13(2) r/w 13(1)(e) P.C. Act. 1988 has been registered. During investigation it was found that during his period of service from 1.1.2001 to 5,3.2010 he has acquired and possessed disproportionate assets in his name and in the name of his family members worth of ₹11,32,821.54. He was found to have acquired movable properties such as Laptop, TV, Hero Honda Pleasure Motor Cycle, Computer, Inverter with batteries, Philips Stereo etc. and immovable properties relating to purchase of plots and construction of building as found during house search on 5.3.2010. He has not obtained any permission nor sent any intimation to his authority regarding acquisition of properties in his name and in the name of his family members as required u/s 21 and 21(3) of Odisha Govt. Servant's Conduct Rule, 1959. That Sri Behera has not submitted any property statement to his authority during his service period as required under Rule 21 of Govt. Servant Conduct Rule 1959. As such, Sri Behera failed to maintain absolute integrity, devotion of duty, decorum of conduct and committed misconduct in violation of Rule 3 and Rule 21 of Odisha Govt. Servant's Conduct Rules, 1959. He is therefore, directed to show cause by 31.10.2012 as to why he shall not be suitably dealt with in the event of the charges being held to be proved against him. Any representation that he may wish to make in this regard will be duly considered by the authority competent to pass final order before passing such orders. Director General of Police & Inspector General of Police, Odisha, Cuttack”. 6.1. It is also found that Petitioner faced the criminal proceeding in Berhampur Vigilance P.S. Case No.51, dtd. 30.11.2010 corresponding to GR Case No.53 of 2010 (V) in the file of learned Special Judge, (Vigilance), Berhampur. In the said vigilance proceeding Petitioner was acquitted of the charges vide judgment dtd.30.01.2014 under Annexure-1. 6.2. Since the charges in both the proceeding are same and Petitioner has been acquitted in the criminal proceeding vide judgment under Annexure-1, placing reliance on the decisions as cited (supra), this Court is of the view that further continuance of the disciplinary proceeding is not to the interest of the Petitioner and will be an abuse of the process of Court. Not only that on the face of the submission of the enquiry report since 31.02.2014, the proceeding is yet to be disposed of. 6.3. In view of the aforesaid analysis, this Court is inclined to quash the proceeding initiated in Gajapati District Proceeding No.14 of 2012 under Annexure-2 and quash the same accordingly. 7. Accordingly, the Writ Petition stands disposed of. (Biraja Prasanna Satapathy) Judge Orissa High Court, Cuttack Dated the 12th May, 2026/Subrat