Page 1 of 6. IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C) No. 9749 of 2026 Kunilata Rout ..... Petitioner Mr. P.K. Lenka, Adv. -versus- State of Odisha & Ors. ..... Opposite Parties Mr. S.P. Das, ASC CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY ORDER 22.07.2026 Order No. 03 1. This matter is taken up through hybrid mode. 2. Heard learned counsel appearing for the Parties. 3. On the face of the order passed by this Court on 02.05.2026 & 20.05.2026, no instruction has yet been obtained by the learned State Counsel. 4. The present Writ Petition has been filed inter alia with the following prayer:- “In the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the petitioner humbly prays that the Hon’ble Court may kindly be graciously pleased to quash the impugned order dated 09.12.2025 under Anenxure-11 of the writ petition and direct the opp. Party No.2, to reinstate the petitioner as Home Guard at Barang police station or anywhere under the Cuttack UPD, within a stipulated time. Page 2 of 6. And. Or pass such other order/orders as may be deemed just and proper, in the facts and circumstances of the case. And for this act of kindness, the petitioner, as in duty bound, shall ever pray.” 4.1. Learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner contended that since Petitioner was discharged from her engagement as a Home Guard, because of her implication in a criminal case and in the meantime, she has been acquitted in the criminal proceeding vide judgment dated 27.02.2023 under Annexure-7, Petitioner is eligible and entitled to get the benefit of re-engagement as a Home guard. 4.2. It is also contended that fresh recruitment of Home guard is being made throughout the State at present and there is no impediment to re-engage the Petitioner. 5. Mr. S.P. Das, learned Addl. Standing Counsel on the other hand contended that, since the Petitioner has been discharged vide order dated 27.12.2019 under Annexure-5 and she was acquitted in the criminal proceeding vide judgment dated 27.02.2023 and there is no such provision for re-engagement of Home Guard, the relief as claimed, cannot be entertained. 6. Having heard learned counsel for the Parties and considering the submission made, this Court finds that Petitioner was engaged as Home Guard in the year 2000 so available under Annexure-1. However, while so continuing, because of her implication in Barang PS Case No.72 dated 12.04.2019, Petitioner was discharged from Page 3 of 6. Cuttack UPD Home Guard Organization w.e.f. 09.12.2019 vide order dated 27.12.2019 of Opp. Party No.3. 6.1. However, as found from Annexure-7, Petitioner was acquitted in the criminal proceeding vide judgment dated 27.02.2023 under Annexure-7. After such acquittal, when Petitioner raised her claim to get the benefit of re-engagement and this Court in the earlier Writ Petition in W.P.(C) No.40186 of 2023, directed for its consideration, but the same was rejected vide the impugned order dated 09.12.2025 under Annexure-11. 6.2. Since Petitioner was only discharged from her work because of her implication in the criminal proceeding and she has been acquitted in the meantime, in view of the decision of the 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), Petitioner is eligible and entitled to get the benefit of re-engagement. 6.3. 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 Page 4 of 6. 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.” 6.4. 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. Page 5 of 6. 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.” 6.5. 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”.” Page 6 of 6. 6.6. Placing reliance on the aforesaid decisions, this Court while quashing the impugned order dated 09.12.2025 under Annexure-11 and so also the order of discharge passed on 27.12.2019 under Annexure-5, direct Opp. Party No.3 to re-engage the Petitioner as a Home Guard with passing of an appropriate order as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of four (4) weeks from the date of receipt of this order. 7. Accordingly, the Writ Petition stands disposed of. (BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY) Judge Jyoti