Orissa High Court
Ghasiram Behera vs State Of Odisha And Others ..... ... on 21 May, 2024
Author: Aditya Kumar Mohapatra
Bench: Aditya Kumar Mohapatra
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
W.P.(C) No.12883 of 2024
Ghasiram Behera ..... Petitioner
Represented By Adv. -
Mr. C.R. Pattnaik
-versus-
State of Odisha and others ..... Opposite Parties
Represented By Adv. -
Mr. N.K. Praharaj,
A.G.A.
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADITYA KUMAR MOHAPATRA
ORDER
21.05.2024
Order No.
01. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement
(Virtual /Physical Mode).
2. Heard learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner as
well as learned Additional Government Advocate appearing
for the State-Opposite Parties. Perused the writ petition as well
as the documents annexed thereto.
3. The present writ petition has been filed by the Petitioner
with the following prayers:-
"Under such circumstance it is therefore
prayed that your Lordship's would be graciously
pleased to admit this writ application, call for
records and after hearing the parties, may be
pleased to issue a writ/s/order/s/direction/s in the
nature of mandamus directing the opposite parties
to re-instate him in service along with all service
benefits admissible to him under law, forthwith,
preferably within a stipulated period as this
Hon'ble court deem fit and proper.
And further may pass any other
order/s/directions/s as this Hon'ble Court deems
fit and proper to extend relief to the petitioner."
4. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the Petitioner
that the Petitioner while in service was entangled in a
vigilance case. After his conviction, he was removed from
service. Thereafter, the Petitioner preferred an appeal before
this Court challenging the order of conviction. In the appeal,
vide the judgment of this Court, the Petitioner has been
acquitted from all charges in the criminal case. After disposal
of the appeal bearing CRLA No.379 of 2017, the Petitioner
has approached the competent authority for his reinstatement
in service. He further submitted that although the Petitioner is
entitled to be reinstated, however, the Opposite Parties have
not taken any steps to reinstate the Petitioner in service. He
also submitted that the Opposite Party No.2 has sought for
clarification from the vigilance authorities. Since no
clarification has been received by the Opposite Party No.3,
the Opposite Party No.2 has not taken any final decision with
regard to the reinstatement in service of the Petitioner after his
acquittal in criminal case. Learned counsel for the Petitioner
further referred to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in Ram Lal v. State of Rajasthan and Others, Civil Appeal
No.7935 of 2023, arising out of SLP (C) No.33423 of 2018, decided
on 4th December, 2023. Referring the aforesaid judgment,
learned counsel for the Petitioner submitted that the case of
the Petitioner is squarely covered by the ratio laid down by
the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the above noted judgment.
Therefore, the Opposite Parties be directed to reinstate the
Petitioner in service by following the aforesaid judgment of
the Hon'ble Supreme Court.
5. Learned counsel for the State, on the other hand,
submitted that the Petitioner has already approached the
Opposite Party No.2. He further submitted that it appears that
the application of the Petitioner is pending before the
Opposite Party No.2. In such view of the matter, learned
Additional Government Advocate submitted that in the event
this Court directs the Opposite Party No.2 to consider the case
of the Petitioner within a stipulated period of time and in
accordance with law, he will have no objection to the same.
6. Considering the submissions of the learned counsels
appearing for the respective parties, this Court deems it proper
to dispose of the writ petition at the stage of admission by
directing the Opposite Party No.2 to consider the
representation of the Petitioner under Annexure-4 to the writ
petition and dispose of the same within a period of two
months from the date of communication of a certified copy of
this order by the Petitioner by passing a speaking and
reasoned order. It is further made clear that if any clarification
is required by the Opposite Party No.2, the same shall be
furnished by the Opposite Party No.3 as expeditiously as
possible, preferably within a period of four weeks from the
date of communication of a certified copy of this order by the
Petitioner. The final decision so taken by the Opposite Party
No.2 be communicated to the Petitioner within ten days
thereafter.
8. With the aforesaid observation and direction, the writ
petition is disposed of.
( A.K. Mohapatra )
Judge
Debasis
