Orissa High Court
Nalini Kumar Mohanta vs State Of Odisha & Ors on 12 April, 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
W.P.C.(OAC) No.2741 of 2007
Nalini Kumar Mohanta .... Petitioner
Mr. S.K. Das, Advocate
-versus-
State of Odisha & Ors. .... Opposite Parties
Mr. M.K. Balabantaray, AGA
CORAM:
JUSTICE BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY
ORDER
12.04.2023
Order No
01. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement
(Virtual/Physical) Mode.
2. Heard Mr. Sanjit Kumar Das, learned counsel for the Petitioner
and Mr. M.K. Balabantaray, learned Addl. Govt. Advocate
appearing for the Opp. Parties.
3. The Petitioner is aggrieved by the in action of the Opp. Parties in
reinstating him in his service with all service and financial benefits.
4. It is contended that because of his implication in a criminal case
in Kuliana P.S. Case No. 8 dtd.14.02.1999, the Petitioner was
dismissed from his service vide order dtd.14.08.2004 under
Annexure-1. Learned counsel for the Petitioner contended that by
the time the Petitioner was so dismissed from his service, the trial
of the matter was pending and prior to being convicted, the order of
dismissal was passed.
4.1. However, it is contended that in the said criminal proceeding in
Kuliana P.S. Case No. 8 dtd.14.02.1999 corresponding to G.R. Case
// 2 //
No. 147/1999, the Petitioner vide Judgment dtd.04.09.2007 was
acquitted from the charges. It is contended that in spite of being
acquitted in the said criminal proceeding though the Petitioner
moved the O.P. No. 4 for his reinstatement on 08.10.2007 vide
Annexure-6, but no decision has been taken with regard to his
reinstatement. It is also contended that during pendency of the
matter the Petitioner has attained the age of superannuation in the
meantime. However, since the Petitioner is acquitted from the
charges in the criminal proceeding, the Petitioner is entitled to get
the retiral benefits as due and admissible to him.
5. Mr. M.K. Balabantaray, learned AGA on the other hand made his
submission basing on the stand taken in the counter affidavit. It is
contended that because of his implication in the aforesaid Kuliana
P.S. Case No. 8 dtd.14.02.1999 and the Petitioner being arrested in
the said case and was also charge-sheeted, the Petitioner was placed
under suspension and a proceeding was initiated against him vide
Mayurbhanj Dist. Proceeding No. 10/2001. Basing on the finding of
the Enquiry Officer available at Annexure-C to the counter, the
Petitioner though was subsequently released from his suspension on
13.06.1999, but in the Departmental Proceeding the Petitioner on
being found guilty of the charges was dismissed from his service
vide order dtd.14.08.2004 under Annexure-1 to the writ petition.
5.1. It is also contended that against the order of dismissal so passed
under Annexure-1 the Petitioner though preferred appeal as well as
revision, but the Appellate Authority as well as the Revisional
Authority rejected the appeal and revision by confirming the order
of punishment of dismissal. It is also contended that since the
Petitioner in the meantime has attained the age of superannuation,
// 3 //
no order of reinstatement can be passed and the prayer as made in
the writ petition has become infructuous.
6. Having heard learned counsel appearing for the Parties and after
going through the materials available on record, it is found that the
Petitioner was proceeded with in the proceeding in question
because of his implication in the criminal case in Kuliana P.S. Case
No. 8 dtd.14.02.1999. As further found from the records, the
Petitioner was acquitted in the said criminal proceeding vide
Judgment dtd.04.09.2007 under Annexure-5. After his acquittal in
the criminal proceeding though the Petitioner moved an application
before the O.P. No. 4 on 08.10.2007 under Annexure-6, but no
decision was taken on the said application. During pendency of the
matter before this Court, the prayer as made in Annexure-6 was
neither considered nor rejected.
6.1. Since the Petitioner was terminated because of his implication
in the criminal case and he was acquitted from the charges vide
Judgment under Annexure-5, as per the considered opinion of this
Court, the authorities should have reconsidered the matter after his
acquittal in the criminal proceeding. Since that has not been done,
taking into account the services rendered by the Petitioner for the
period from 18.06.1981 till the date of termination i.e.14.08.2004
and the order of acquittal passed in his favour, the Petitioner be
extended with the benefit of compassionate allowances as provided
under Rule 46 of the OCS (Pension) Rules, 1992. This Court
accordingly directs the O.P. No. 4 to take appropriate step for
sanction of compassionate allowances in favour of the Petitioner as
provided under Rule 46 of the OCS (Pension) Rules, 1992. Such an
// 4 //
exercise shall be undertaken and completed within a period of three
(3) months from the date of receipt of this order.
7. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of with the aforesaid
observation and direction.
(Biraja Prasanna Satapathy)
Judge
Sneha
