Orissa High Court
Akshya Kumar Dash vs State Of Odisha And Others .... Opp. ... on 3 January, 2024
Author: A.K. Mohapatra
Bench: A.K. Mohapatra
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
W.P.(C) No.28341 of 2020
Akshya Kumar Dash .... Petitioner
Mr. D. Nayak, Advocate
-versus-
State of Odisha and others .... Opp. Parties
Mr. Nikhil Pratap, A.S.C.
CORAM:
JUSTICE A.K. MOHAPATRA
ORDER
Order No. 03.01.2024
07. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement
(Virtual /Physical Mode).
2. Heard learned counsel for the Petitioner as well as learned
Additional Standing Counsel appearing for the State-Opposite
Parties. Perused the writ petition as well as the counter affidavit
filed by the State-Opposite Parties along with the documents
annexed to the respective pleadings.
3. By filing the present writ petition, the Petitioner calls in
question the conduct of the Opposite Parties in disengaging the
Petitioner from service vide order dated 08.10.2020 under
Annexure-7 to the writ petition and further prays for quashing of
the order under Anneuxre-7 to the writ petition and to reinstate
the Petitioner in service.
// 2 //
4. Learned counsel for the Petitioner, at the outset, submitted
that the while the Petitioner was working as Grama Panchayat
Technical Assistant (GPTA)/Junior Engineer, he was entangled
in a vigilance trap case bearing Balasore Vigilance P.S. Case
No.45 dated 18.08.2017. On being entangled in the aforesaid
vigilance case, the Opposite Parties immediately disengaged the
Petitioner from service vide order dated 20.09.2017 under
Annexue-1 to the writ petition. Challenging the aforesaid
disengaged order, the Petitioner approached this Court by filing
a writ petition bearing W.P.(C) No.22521 of 2017, which was
disposed of vide order dated 10.12.2019 thereby quashing the
impugned order under Annexure-1 to the writ petition.
Thereafter, the Petitioner approached the Opposite Parties and
vide order dated 24.01.2020, the Petitioner was reinstated in
service subject to the condition that his continuance in service is
subject to the final order of the vigilance court in Balasore
Vigilance P.S. Case referred to hereinabove. While the Petitioner
was working as such, he was again disengaged from service vide
order dated 08.10.2020 under Annexure-7 to the writ petition.
Challenging order dated 08.10.2020 under Annexure-7 to the
writ petition, the Petitioner has approached this Court by filing
the present writ petition.
5. Learned counsel for the Petitioner further contended that
during the pendency of the present writ petition, the Petitioner
was made to face trial in the vigilance case. The learned Special
Judge (Vigilance), Baripada, has concluded the trial and vide
judgment dated 29th April, 2023 passed in VGR Case no.13 of
// 3 //
2017 (T.C. No.05 of 2018), the Petitioner has been acquitted
under Section 248(1) of Cr.P.C. by the trial court. After his
acquittal in the aforesaid criminal case, the Petitioner has again
approached this Court by filing I.A. No.16182 of 2023 for a
direction to the Opposite Parties to reconsider his case by taking
into consideration the fact that he has already been acquitted by
the learned Special Judge (Vigilance), Baripada in the noted
vigilance case.
6. Learned Additional Standing Counsel appearing for the
State-Opposite Parties, on the other hand, submitted that the
Petitioner was involved in a vigilance trap case while accepting
bribe. It was further alleged that the Petitioner was caught red
handed while taking bribe and, accordingly, vigilance case was
initiated against the Petitioner. Learned Additional Standing
Counsel further referring to the counter affidavit submitted
before this Court that the State-Opposite Parties have not acted
in any illegal manner. He further contended that pursuant to the
clause in para-9(a)(ii) of the Panchayatiraj and Drinking Water
Department Office Order No.5011 dated 14.03.2018, the
Opposite Parties have passed the order of disengagement of the
Petitioner from service. Further, in course of his argument,
learned Additional Standing Counsel also referred to the Memo
of the Panchayatiraj and Drinking Water Department dated
08.10.2020 to support the conduct of the Opposite Parties in
disengaging the Petitioner from service. Learned Additional
Standing Counsel further contended that since the Petitioner is
claiming that he has been acquitted in the vigilance case, the
// 4 //
Petitioner should have approached the Departmental Authority
first along with a copy of the judgment passed by the trial court
before approaching this Court. He further contended that since
the background facts have changed in the meantime by virtue of
the order of the acquittal, the Petitioner be directed to approach
the Opposite Parties along with a copy of the judgment of the
trial court. He further contended that in the event the Petitioner
approaches the Opposite Parties, the case of the Petitioner shall
be considered strictly in terms of the rules governing the field.
7. Considering the submissions made by the learned counsels
appearing for the respective parties and on a careful examination
of the background facts of the present case as well as taking note
of the pleadings and the materials on record, this Court observes
that the present writ petition was filed challenging the
disengagement order while the trial in the vigilance case was
pending against the Petitioner. However, during pendency of the
present writ petition, the Petitioner has faced the trial and he has
been acquitted by virtue of the judgment delivered by the trial
court which has been annexed to the interlocutory application
filed by the Petitioner on 8.10.2023. Under such change
scenario, this Court deems it proper to dispose of the writ
petition by granting liberty to the Petitioner to approach the
Opposite Party No.5-Director, Panchayati Raj Department,
Odisha, Bhubaneswar along with a certified copy of this order.
In the event the Petitioner approaches the Opposite Party No.5,
the Opposite Party No.5 shall consider the case of the Petitioner
by taking into consideration the fact that the Petitioner has
// 5 //
already been acquitted in the vigilance case and pass necessary
orders strictly in conformity with the rules as well as the law
governing the field, within a period of six weeks from the date of
communication of a certified copy of this order by the Petitioner.
Any decision taken by the Opposite Party No.5 be also
communicated to the Petitioner within two weeks from the date
of taking such decision.
8. With the aforesaid observation and direction, the writ
petition is disposed of.
( A.K. Mohapatra)
Judge
Debasis
