Orissa High Court
Sailendra Kumar Samal vs State Of Odisha And on 5 October, 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
W.P.(C) (OAC) No.650 of 2019
Sailendra Kumar Samal .... Petitioner
Dr. J.K. Lenka, Advocate
-versus-
State of Odisha and .... Opposite Parties
Others
Mr. H.K. Panigrahi, ASC
CORAM:
JUSTICE BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY
ORDER
05.10.2023
Order No.
08. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid
Arrangement (Virtual/Physical) Mode.
2. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
3. The Petitioner has filed the present Writ Petition
inter alia challenging the initiation of two nos. of
proceedings vide Memorandum No.7707 dtd.11.03.2019
and Memorandum No.7711 dtd.11.03.2019 under
Annexure-18-Series.
4. It is the main contention of the learned counsel for
the Petitioner that both the proceedings have been
initiated against the Petitioner for his alleged role with
regard to execution of sale deeds during his incumbency
as District Sub-Registrar, Khurda at Bhubaneswar for the
period from 26.09.2008 to 01.02.2012.
4.1. It is also contended for the self-same allegation,
Petitioner also faced two vigilance proceedings vide
Bhubaneswar Vigilance P.S. Case Nos.69 and 70 of 2011
// 2 //
and in both the vigilance proceedings, Petitioner was
acquitted from the charges vide judgment dtd.21.08.2018
so passed by this Court in CRL.REV Nos.509 & 510 of
2018.
4.2. It is contented that since on the self-same charges,
the Petitioner has been acquitted from the offences in the
vigilance proceedings, no proceeding could have been
initiated by Opposite Party No.1 vide Memorandum
dtd.11.03.2019 under Annexure-18-Series.
4.3. It is also contended that the Tribunal on being
satisfied with the grounds taken in the petition issued
notice of the matter vide order dtd.13.03.2019 and
passed an interim order on dtd.15.03.2019 by staying the
proceedings.
4.4. Mr. Lenka accordingly contended that there is no
material to proceed against the Petitioner and both the
proceedings are liable to be set -aside by this Court.
5. Mr. Panigrahi, learned Addl. Standing Counsel for
the State on the other hand contended that though the
Petitioner has been acquitted from the charges in the
vigilance proceeding, but there is no bar to initiate
disciplinary proceeding against the Petitioner on the self-
same allegation. If the Petitioner has been acquitted in
the vigilance proceeding, the Petitioner can very well bring
it to the notice of Opposite Party No.1 while filing his
written statement of defence. Since the present writ
petition has been filed challenging the initiation of both
// 3 //
the proceedings against the Petitioner, the writ petition is
not maintainable.
6. Having heard learned counsel for the Parties and
after going through the materials available on record, it is
found that the Petitioner has been acquitted from the
charges in both Bhubaneswar Vigilance P.S. Case Nos.69
and 70 of 2011 vide judgment dtd.21.08.2018 of this
Court in CRL.REV Nos.509 and 510 of 2018. But it is
found that both the proceedings have been initiated
basing on the initiation of the vigilance proceedings
against the Petitioner. This Court in view of the same
while disposing the Writ Petition permits the Petitioner to
bring it notice of Opposite Party No.1 the order of
acquittal passed in the vigilance proceeding while filing
his written statement of defence. It is observed that if
such a stand is taken by the Petitioner, Opposite Party
No.1 shall deal with the same in its proper perspective
along with other grounds while deciding the matter
finally. Since because of the challenge made, Petitioner
has not filed his written statement of defence, he is
permitted to file the same within a period of four (4)
weeks from the date of receipt of this order.
6.1. Since the Petitioner in the meantime has retired
from his service, this Court directs Opposite Party No.1 to
conclude both the proceedings in accordance with law
within a period of one (1) year from the date of receipt of
the written statement of defence. However, it is observed
that the Petitioner will cooperate at every stage of the
// 4 //
proceeding and will not seek for any unnecessary
adjournment. It is also observed that if the Petitioner
fails to file his written statement of defence within the
aforesaid time period, Opposite Party No.1 shall be free to
proceed with the matter in accordance with law. Interim
order passed earlier stands vacated.
7. With the aforesaid observations and directions, the
Writ Petition stands disposed of.
(Biraja Prasanna Satapathy)
Judge
Subrat
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: SUBRAT KUMAR BARIK
Reason: Authentication
Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACK
Date: 06-Oct-2023 15:06:36
