Manmohan Mishra vs State Of Odisha And Others
2022 Latest Caselaw 5446 Ori

              IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
                             WPC (OA) No. 1764 of 2019

Manmohan Mishra                      .....                                      Petitioner
                                                     Mr. N. Rath, Advocate on behalf of
                                                             Mr. C.S. Panda, Advocate
                                     Vs.
State of Odisha and others           .....                                Opposite parties
                                                                        Mr.S. Rath, ASC

             CORAM:
                DR. JUSTICE B.R. SARANGI

                                                ORDER

12.10.2022

Order No. This matter is taken up through hybrid mode.

2. Heard Mr. N. Rath, learned counsel for the Petitioner and Mr. S. Rath, learned Additional Standing Counsel for the State.

3. The petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking to quash the punishment order dated 15.05.2019 under Annexure-3 issued by the opposite party no.1 and to allow him to continue in his post of Joint Secretary to Government in the rank of OAS (S) with all consequential service and financial benefits.

4. Mr. N. Rath, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that since the criminal case is pending in appeal after conviction and the petitioner is availing bail, in view of the judgment of this court in the case of Sankar Prasad Padhi v. State of Orissa and another, 2016 (I) ILR-CUT-366, the dismissal order being quashed, the same relief should be granted to the petitioner. Further reliance has also been placed to the judgment of this Court in the case of Sri Gurunath Pradhan v. State of

Orissa and others, OJC No. 858 of 1978 decided on 05.03.1979, wherein it has been held that there is a clear distinction between dismissing a Government servant for his misconduct and dismissing him for his conviction. Therefore, since in the criminal case, the petitioner has been convicted and the same is on appeal, the order of punishment should be set aside and the petitioner should be allowed to continue in service. The judgments cited by learned counsel for the petitioner be kept on record.

5. Mr. S. Rath, learned Additional Standing Counsel for the State contended that the judgment cited by learned counsel for the petitioner is not applicable to the petitioner and contended that in view of the order already passed in WPC (OA) 745 of 2018 disposed of on 13.09.2022, the petitioner is not entitled to get the benefit as claimed by him.

6. Mr. N. Rath, learned counsel for the petitioner wants to examine the same.

7. Call this matter after two weeks.

(DR. B.R. SARANGI, J.) Arun