Orissa High Court
Prabir Kumar Nayak vs State Of Odisha & Others on 15 September, 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
W.P.(C ) No.20162 of 2022
Prabir Kumar Nayak .... Petitioner
-versus-
State of Odisha & Others .... Opposite Parties
COROM:
JUSTICE BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY
ORDER
Order No 15.9.2022
2. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Mode.
2. Heard Mr. T.K. Mishra, learned counsel for Petitioner and
Mr. Mishra, learned Standing Counsel for the State-Opposite
Parties.
3. The Petitioner is aggrieved by the order of disengagement
issued by the Collector, Nawarangpur vide order No.1890 dated
14.09.2010.
4. It is submitted that the Petitioner while continuing as
Trained Graduate Teacher in Govt. S.S.D., Girls High School,
Joginga in Upper Madhuguda under Kotagarh Block in the
district of Nawarangpur, the Petitioner because of his
implication in a criminal case was disengaged by the Collector
without prior notice vide order dated 14.09.2010 under
Annexure-4.
5. Mr. Mallik, learned counsel for the Petitioner submitted
that in the meantime the Petitioner was acquitted in the said
criminal case vide judgment dated 9.4.2012 passed by the
// 2 //
learned Sessions Judge, Nawarangpur in Criminal Appeal No.20
of 2011 under Annexure-5. It is further submitted that after his
acquittal the Petitioner though approached the opposite parties
time and again seeking his reinstatement, but the Collector
rejected his claim vide order dated 15.03.2013 under
Annexure-8.
6. Mr. Mallik submitted that since the Petitioner was
terminated because of his implication in a criminal case and he
has been acquitted in the meantime, his prayer for
reinstatement needs consideration by the Opposite Parties. In
support of the same, he brought to the notice of this Court, a
decision reported in 2014(1) ILR CTC, 1070. Relying on some
decisions passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court, this Court in the
said decision has held that after such acquittal, the employee
concerned is required to be reinstated in his previous post.
7. Mr. Mallik also brought to the notice of this Court another
decision reported in 2002(Suppl.) OLR-524. In the said
reported decision Hon'ble Court in Para-5 held as follows:-
" We may take that as the conviction was set aside, it
has to be taken as if he was never convicted. In other
words, with the order of acquittal the misconduct following
his conviction no more subsists. With the order of acquittal,
the misconduct based on co-called conviction stands
affected. As the basis for dismissal no more exists for the
reasons aforesaid, the impugned order of dismissal is liable
to be quashed".
8. Mr. Mallik submitted that since the Petitioner has been
acquitted in the meantime let him approach the Opposite Party
No.2 for his reinstatement.
9. Considering the submission made by the learned counsel
for the Parties, this Court while setting aside the order dated
14.09.2010 and dated 15.03.2013 under Annexures-4 & 8
respectively, direct the Opposite Party No.2 to take a fresh
// 3 //
decision with regard to reinstatement of the Petitioner within a
period of three months from the date of receipt of this order.
10. It is observed that while taking such a decision, the said
Opposite Party No.2 shall take into consideration the decision of
this Court as cited (supra).
11. With the aforesaid observations, the Writ Petition stands
disposed of.
(Biraja Prasanna Satapathy)
Judge
Subrat
