Orissa High Court
Smt. Sanghamitra Mahapatra vs State Of Odisha And Others on 4 April, 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
W.P.(C) No.9877 of 2023
Smt. Sanghamitra Mahapatra .... Petitioner
Ms. Anima Kumari Dei, Advocate
-versus-
State of Odisha and others .... Opp. Parties
Mr. Iswar Mohanty, ASC
CORAM:
JUSTICE A.K. MOHAPATRA
ORDER
Order No. 04.04.2023
01. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual
/Physical Mode).
2. Heard learned counsel for the parties. Perused the writ petition
and documents annexed therewith.
3. Considering the submission made by learned counsel for the
Petitioner that during pendency of criminal trial, filing of defence by
the Petitioner in the disciplinary proceeding will jeopardize the
prospect of the delinquent-Petitioner involved in the criminal case,
this Court finds support for the submission of learned counsel in the
aforesaid context from the decision of the Hon'ble apex Court
reported in AIR 1999 SC 1416, decided taking support of the old
decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court reported in AIR 1965 SC 155.
Similar view has also been taken in a judgment reported in (2012) 1
SCC- 442.
4. By filing the present writ petition, the Petitioner has prayed for
// 2 //
stay of the Departmental Proceeding dated 28.02.2018 under
Annexure-2 series involving the Petitioner till finalization of the
Criminal Trial vide Koraput Vigilance P.S. Case No.52 of 2013
pending in the Court of the learned Special Judge, Vigilance,
Bhawanipatna.
5. Learned counsel for the State draws the attention of this Court
to the charges framed by Criminal Court and in the Departmental
Proceeding and contends that the disciplinary proceeding has been
initiated against Petitioner for suppression of information regarding
her involvement in criminal case and, as such, the charges in both the
cases are different. Therefore, he submits that the ratio decided in
aforesaid Supreme Court judgments are not applicable to the facts of
the present case and the disciplinary proceeding against the
Petitioner should not be stayed awaiting the verdict in criminal case
and further prays for dismissal of the writ petition.
6. This Court on a careful scrutiny of the charges in both
proceedings partly agrees with the submission made by learned AGA
for the state. The charges in criminal case no doubt forms the basis
for the initiation of D.P. in addition to the charge that such
information was not disclosed to the employer by the employee in
violation of the service Rules. However, this Court is also of the
view that while continuing with the D.P. the Petitioner would be
required to disclose his defence which might be detrimental to her
interest involved in the criminal trial.
7. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and upon a
careful analysis of the rival contentions and upon a scrutiny of the
writ petition and the documents attached to it, this Court in the
// 3 //
greater interest of justice deems it proper to dispose of the writ
petition by directing that the Departmental Proceeding against the
Petitioner shall remain stayed for a period of one year from the date
of this order. Further, on production of a certified copy of this order
by the Petitioner, the Court in seisin of the trial of the case arising
out of Koraput Vigilance P.S. Case No.52 of 2013 under Section
13(2) read with 13(1)(e) of the P.C. Act shall expedite the trial and
make every endeavour to conclude the trial within one year. Parties
are directed to cooperate with the trial court.
8. With the aforesaid observation and direction, the writ
application is disposed of.
( A.K. Mohapatra)
Judge
Debasis
