IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C) No.7646 of 2026 In the matter of an application under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India. ……………… Pradyumna Mohapatra …. Petitioner -versus- State of Odisha & Ors. …. Opposite Parties For Petitioner : Ms. K.R. Choudhury, Advocate For Opp. Parties : Mr. A. Tripathy, Addl. Govt. Advocate PRESENT: THE HON’BLE JUSTICE BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Date of Hearing: 16.03.2026 and Date of Judgment: 16.03.2026 --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Biraja Prasanna Satapathy, J. 1. This matter is taken up through hybrid mode. 2. Heard Ms. K.R. Choudhury, learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner and Mr. A. Tripathy, learned Addl. Govt. Advocate appearing for the Opp. Parties. p. 2 p. 2 3. The present writ petition has been filed inter alia with the following prayer:- “In the facts and under the circumstances stated above, the Hon'ble Court would graciously be pleased to admit this WRIT application, call for record and i. Issue Rule NISI calling upon the Opp. Party to show cause, as to why the Order of punishment under Annexure-3 and the consequential Order under ANNEXURE-6 shall not be quashed; and if the they fail to show cause or show insufficient cause make the Rule absolute; ii. Issue a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the O.P.to grant all consequential service benefits as admissible under the law. iii. Issue any appropriate writ(s)/direction(s)/order(s) deemed fit in the fact and circumstances of the case.” 4. Learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner contended that while continuing in service, the proceeding in question was initiated vide charge memo dtd.30.12.2014, because of the allegation of bigamy made by the wife before Opp. Party No. 5. Thereafter, a criminal proceeding was also initiated on self-same charges in Odagaon P.S. Case No. 48 dtd.13.04.2015. p. 3 p. 3 4.1. It is contended that though on self-same issue, Petitioner faced a criminal proceeding, but Opp. Party No. 5 without waiting for the result of the criminal proceeding, disposed of the criminal proceeding vide order dtd.21.04.2018 under Annexure-3. Vide the said order Petitioner was imposed with the punishment of one black mark. 4.2. It is however contended that since in the criminal proceeding Petitioner was acquitted vide judgment dtd.09.12.2021, after such acquittal in the criminal proceeding, Petitioner filed an appeal before the appellate authority-Opp. Party No. 3 on 24.02.2022 under Annexure-5 with a prayer to set-aside the order of punishment, passed by Opp. Party No. 5 in his order dtd.20.04.2018 under Annexure-3. But Opp. Party No. 3 without proper appreciation of the order of acquittal passed in the criminal proceeding vide judgment dtd.09.12.2021, rejected the appeal vide order dtd.09.06.2025 under Annexure-6. 4.3. Learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner contended that since on self-same charges Petitioner was acquitted in the criminal proceeding and question of bigamy was not proved, on self-same charges punishment imposed by the disciplinary authority-Opp. Party No. 5 vide order dtd.21.04.2018 should have been interfered with by Opp. Party No. 3 while dealing with the appeal. p. 4 p. 4 4.4. It is contended that the appellate authority on the face of his acquittal in the criminal proceeding, also rejected the appeal without proper appreciation vide order dtd.09.06.2025 under Annexure-6. Placing reliance 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), learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner contended that in view of the aforesaid two (2) decisions, the order of punishment passed in the disciplinary proceeding, is required to be set aside, as Petitioner has been acquitted in the criminal proceeding. 4.5. 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 p. 5 p. 5 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.” 4.6. 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 p. 6 p. 6 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.” 5. Mr. A. Tripathy, learned Addl. Govt. Advocate on the other hand contended that since prior to disposal of the criminal proceeding, Petitioner had already been punished in the departmental proceeding vide order dtd.21.04.2018 under Annexure-3, the said order of acquittal cannot be taken as a ground to interfere with the punishment passed in the disciplinary proceeding. 5.1. It is also contended that Petitioner never challenged the order of punishment by filing the appeal within the prescribed time period and the same was only filed after Petitioner was acquitted in the criminal proceeding vide judgment dtd.09.12.2021. It is accordingly contended that no illegality or irregularity can be found either with the order passed under Annexure-3 by the disciplinary authority-Opp. Party No. 5 or in the order passed by the appellate authority in his order dtd.09.06.2025 under Annexure-6. p. 7 p. 7 6. Having heard learned counsel appearing for the Parties and considering the submission made, this Court finds that basing on the allegation made by the wife of the present Petitioner and prior to initiation of any criminal proceeding, Petitioner was proceeded with in a disciplinary proceeding with the following charges:- “Sepoy-113 Pradyumna Mohapatra of Band Platoon OSAP 3rd Bn. Koraput, is charged with gross misconduct in that. Allegation made by Smt. Subhashree Hota wife of s/113 Pradyumna Mohapatra that her husband Pradyumna Mohapatra got married to one lady namely Sarita Hota, D/O-Pramod Kumar Hota, vil-Uditnarayanpur., PS-Sadar Bhabanipatna. Dist. Kalahandi in disguised name Le Asutosh, S/O-Sudarsan Mohapatra. Dy Commandant Sri S.K. Behera enquired into the matter and concluded that, the Charged Sepoy-113 P. Mohapatra got married to Smt Sarita Hota and allegation is found true. Sepoy- 113 P.Mahapatra got married for second time without prior permission from the competent authority. Polygamy is strictly prohibited for Govt Servants. The Charged Sepoy has violated the Govt Servant Conduct rule-24-1959, which is a serious misconduct on part of responsible Govt Servant. The charged s/113 Pradyumna Mohapatra is therefore, directed to show cause by 15.01.2015 as to why suitable disciplinary action as deemed proper shall not be taken against him in the event of charge being held to be proved against him. Any representation he wishes to make in this regard will be duly considered by the authority competent to make final order before passing of such order.” p. 8 p. 8 6.1. Subsequently, basing on the F.I.R. lodged by the wife, Petitioner was implicated in Odagaon P.S. Case No. 48 dtd.13.04.2015 for the offence under Sec.294/506/494/419 & 34 of the I.P.C.. In the departmental proceeding, Petitioner was imposed with the punishment of one black mark vide order td.20.04.2018 under Annexure-3. But in the criminal proceeding so initiated, Petitioner as found from the record was acquitted vide judgment dtd.09.12.2021 in G.R. Case No. 69 f 2015 by the learned Nyayadhikari, Grama Nyayalaya, Odagaon. 6.2. After such acquittal in the criminal proceeding, Petitioner filed an appeal with a prayer to set aside the order of punishment passed by the disciplinary authority vide his order dtd.20.04.2018 under Annexure-3. But as found, the appellate authority rejected the same vide the impugned order dtd.09.06.2025 under Annexure-6. 6.3. Placing reliance on the decision in the case of Ram Lal so followed in Maharana Pratap Singh so cited supra, this Court is of the view that since Petitioner on self-same charges has been acquitted in the criminal proceeding, factum of such acquittal should have been taken note of by the appellate authority while deciding the appeal. Since the said fact has not been taken into consideration by the appellate authority while rejecting the appeal, this Court for the present is inclined to quash order p. 9 p. 9 dtd.09.06.2025 so passed by Opp. Party No. 3 under Annexure-6. While quashing the same, this Court remits the matter to Opp. Party No. 3 to take a fresh decision in the appeal so filed by the Petitioner under Annexure-5, taking into account the decision in the case of Ram Lal so followed in Maharana Pratap Singh so cited supra. This Court directs Opp. Party No. 3 to take a fresh decision as directed within a period of three (3) months from the date of receipt of this order. Petitioner is permitted to provide a copy of this order along with the citations in the case of Ram Lal as well as Maharana Pratap Singh as cited supra before Opp. Party No. 3 for compliance. 7. The writ petition accordingly stands disposed of. (BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY) JUDGE Orissa High Court, Cuttack Dated the 16th March, 2026/Sneha