Kailash Chandra Kandi vs State Of Odisha & Ors
2023 Latest Caselaw 5612 Ori

            IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

                         W.P.(C)(OAC) No.2836 of 2014

        Kailash Chandra Kandi               ....                Petitioner
                                                       Mr. H.B. Sutar, Advocate

                                            -versus-

        State of Odisha & Ors.              ....               Opposite Parties
                                                          Mr. B. Panigrahi, ASC


                            CORAM:
               JUSTICE BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY

                                     ORDER

10.05.2023 Order No

07. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual/Physical) Mode.

2. Heard Mr. H.B. Sutar, learned counsel for the Petitioner and Mr. B. Panigrahi, learned Addl. Standing Counsel appearing for the Opp. Parties.

3. The present writ petition has been filed challenging the order of punishment passed against the Petitioner by the Appellate Authority under Annexure-9, wherein the order of dismissal so passed by the Original Authority was modified and the Petitioner was allowed to take compulsory retirement from his service w.e.f.02.04.2010.

4. Learned counsel for the Petitioner contended that the Petitioner along with two (2) others faced similar nature of proceeding for their alleged involvement in Cantonment P.S. Case No. 57 dtd.22.06.2004 corresponding G.R. Case No. 967 of 2004. It is contended that all the three (3) accused persons which includes the present Petitioner and one Pratap Kumar Sahu along with Ashok // 2 //

Kumar Mallick faced the trial in S.T. No. 866 of 2004. Vide Judgment dtd.05.12.2007 of the learned 1st Addl. Sessions Judge, Cuttack, all the three (3) persons were acquitted from the charges. It is contended that though all the three (3) accused persons stand in the similar footing, but co-accused Ashok Kumar Mallick who was under suspension while facing the proceeding was reinstated in his service after he was acquitted from the criminal charges and he is continuing as such till date. Accordingly, it is contended that since similarly situated co-accused was reinstated in his service, the order of punishment so passed by the Appellate Authority under Annexure-9 is not sustainable in the eye of law and Petitioner is eligible for his reinstatement.

5. Mr. B. Panigrahi, learned ASC does not dispute the contention raised by the learned counsel for the Petitioner with regard to continuance of co-accused Ashok Kumar Mallick in his service. However, Mr. Panigrahi contended that another co-accused namely Pratap Kumar Sahoo, who had also approached this Court against the order of dismissal, he was allowed to take voluntary retirement from his service in terms of the order passed by this Court in W.P.C.(OAC) No. 4116 of 2015. It is accordingly contended that since one of the co-accused has been allowed to take voluntary retirement as like the Petitioner, no interference is called for.

6. Having heard learned counsel for the Parties and taking into account the materials available on record as well as the submissions made, it is found that the Petitioner along with two (2) others namely Pratap Kumar Sahu and Ashok Kumar Mallick faced disciplinary proceedings because of their involvement in S.T. No. 866 of 2004 arising out of Cantonment P.S. Case No. 57

// 3 //

dtd.22.06.2004 corresponding to G.R. Case No. 967 of 2004. Since all the three (3) co-accused stand in similar footing and one of the co-accused namely Ashok Kumar Mallick is continuing in his service, this Court is of the view that the Petitioner is also entitled to get similarly benefit as like co-accused Ashok Kumar Mallick. While holding so, this Court is inclined to interfere with the impugned order of punishment so passed by the Appellate Authority under Annexure-9. While interfering with the same, this Court is inclined to quash the order of punishment at Annexure-9 and directs the Opp. Party No. 4 to reinstate the Petitioner in his service within a period of one month from the date of receipt of this order. However, taking into account the submission made by Mr. Sutar that the Petitioner is not claiming any financial benefit for the period he remained out of employment, the period of service from the date of dismissal till the date of reinstatement shall be counted on notional basis only.

7. With the aforesaid observation and direction, the writ petition is disposed of.

(Biraja Prasanna Satapathy) Judge Sneha

Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: SNEHANJALI PARIDA Designation: Jr. Stenographer Reason: Authentication Location: Cuttack Date: 13-May-2023 14:43:58