Director General Of Police (Dgp) vs Prasanna Kumar Swain
2023 Latest Caselaw 1559 Ori

                   IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
                                  W.A. No.125 of 2018
            Director General of Police (DGP), ....                Appellants
            Central Reserve Police force & Others
                                      Mr. Debaranjan Mohapatra, Advocate


                                           -versus-

            Prasanna Kumar Swain                 ....           Respondent
                            Mr. Kali Prasanna Mishra, Sr. Advocate
                     CORAM:
                     THE CHIEF JUSTICE
                     JUSTICE M. S. RAMAN

                                   ORDER

Order No. 20.02.2023

10. 1. The impugned order while not interfering with the finding of guilt in the disciplinary proceedings against the Respondent has only directed the Appellant to reconsider the quantum of the punishment, which was dismissal of his service. In the last over five years after the impugned judgment of the learned Single Judge, and during pendency of the present writ appeal, there has been no stay of the impugned order. Consequently, it is to be expected that the impugned order should have been complied with.

2. Mr. Kali Prasanna Mishra, Senior Counsel for the Respondent informs the Court that despite there being no stay granted by this Court, the impugned order has not been implemented. Apparently, there is a contempt petition pending against the present Appellant.

3. Heard learned counsel for the Appellant and learned Senior Counsel for the Respondent, this Court is of the view that with the relief being granted by the learned Single Judge to a limited extent of requiring the Appellant to reconsider the quantum of punishment,

does not call for interference. What appears to have weighed the learned Single Judge is that the criminal case which was shown to be pending at that time the Respondent got the offer employment, ended in an acquittal of the Respondent. The case itself did not involve allegations of moral turpitude and was registered under Sections 436/506/34 IPC arising out of a quarrel during Panchayat Election. In the circumstances, the Court is of the view that the impugned order of the learned Single Judge does not call for interference.

4. The appeal is dismissed.

(Dr. S. Muralidhar) Chief Justice

(M. S. Raman) Judge Aks