Kalicharan Kulosika vs State Of Odisha & Others
2025 Latest Caselaw 6941 Ori

Orissa High Court

Kalicharan Kulosika vs State Of Odisha & Others on 10 April, 2025

Author: Biraja Prasanna Satapathy

Bench: Biraja Prasanna Satapathy

          IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

                        W.P.(C) No.9656 of 2023
        Kalicharan Kulosika                ....                        Petitioner
                                                         Mr. K.K. Swain, Advocate

                               -versus-
        State of Odisha & Others
                                  ....                              Opp. Parties
                                                             Mr. A. Tripathy, AGA

                            CORAM:
               JUSTICE BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY
                                         ORDER

10.04.2025 Order No.

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

2. Heard learned counsel appearing for the Parties.

3. The present Writ Petition has been filed inter alia challenging the order dtd.03.12.2022 so passed by the Chief Executive Office, Zilla Parishad-cum-Collector, Rayagada-Opposite Party No.2 under Annexure-9. Vide the said order, claim of the Petitioner for his reinstatement as a Junior Teacher was rejected.

4. Learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner contended that Petitioner was engaged as a Sikshya Sahayak in the district of Rayagada during the year 2008 and after completion of 3 years of engagement, he was engaged as a Junior Teacher during the year 2011.

// 2 //

4.1. It is contended that while so continuing, when Petitioner was involved in a criminal case in GR Case No.19/2012 in the file of learned SDJM, Rayagada, he was issued with a show cause on 10.06.2013.

4.2. It is contended that even though Petitioner submitted his reply on 20.06.2013, but without issuing any formal order of disengagement, Petitioner was not allowed to continue after submission of the reply on 20.06.2013.

4.3. It is contended that subsequently Petitioner was honourably acquitted in the criminal proceeding so initiated against him, vide judgment dtd.30.07.2016 by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Rayagada in C.T. Case No.27/2014 arising out of G.R. Case No.19/2012 under Annexure-5.

4.4. Learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner contended that Petitioner was disengaged because of his implication in the criminal case in which he was honorably acquitted vide judgment dtd.30.07.2016 under Annexure-5. After such acquittal, Petitioner though moved Opposite Party No.2 time and again seeking his re-instatement, but the same was never considered. Petitioner finding no alternative approached this Court by filing W.P.(C) No.12598 of 2020 and this Court vide order dtd.27.05.2020, while disposing the Writ Petition directed Opposite Party No.2

// 3 //

to take a decision on the Petitioner's claim for his re- engagement.

4.5. It is contended that after being communicated with the said order, claim of the Petitioner has been rejected vide the impugned order dtd.03.12.2022 under Annexure-9.

4.6. It is contended that since only on the ground of his implication in the criminal case, Petitioner was disengaged / not allowed to discharge his duty after 20.06.2013, after his acquittal in the criminal case, he is entitled for his reinstatement in view of the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Ram Lal Vrs. State of Rajasthan and Ors. (Civil Appeal No.7935 of 2023). Hon'ble Apex Court in Para-31 has held as follows:-

"31. Accordingly, we set aside the judgment of the D.B. Special Appeal (Writ) No.484 of 2011 dated 05.09.2018. We direct that the appellant shall be reinstated with all consequential benefits including seniority, notional promotions, fitment of salary and all other benefit. As far as back wages are concerned, we are inclined to award the appellant 50% of the back wages. The directions be complied with within a period of four weeks from today."

4.7. It is contended that even though Opposite Party No.2 in the impugned order clearly admitted that Petitioner has been honourably acquitted in the criminal proceeding, but only on the ground that Petitioner was disengaged w.e.f.2013 and in the meantime a long period has elapsed, rejected the claim of the Petitioner for his re-instatement.

// 4 //

4.8. It is contended that Petitioner immediately after his acquittal vide judgment dtd.30.07.2016, approached Opposite Party No.2 for his re-instatement and when the same was not considered, he approached this Court in W.P.(C) No. 12598 of 2020. Therefore, the ground on which claim of the Petitioner has been rejected is not sustainable in the eye of law and it requires interference of this Court.

5. Even though notice of the Writ Petition has been issued since 05.04.2023, but no counter affidavit has been filed. However basing on the available materials, learned Addl. Government Advocate contended that since Petitioner because of his implication in the criminal case was not allowed to discharge his duty, after submission of his reply on 20.06.2013 and in the meantime more than 11 years have passed, Opposite Party No.2 rightly rejected his claim vide the impugned order dt.03.12.2022.

5.1. It is also contended that since the Petitioner was involved in a case of serious nature involving the offence under Sections-498-A, 306 of the I.P.C read with Section-4 of the D.P. Act, even though he is acquitted, but he has got no vested right of re- instatement.

6. Having heard learned counsel appearing for the Parties and considering the submissions made, this

// 5 //

Court finds that Petitioner was engaged as a Sikshya Sahayak in the year 2008 and while so continuing he was engaged as a Junior Teacher in the year 2011. Because of his implication in G.R. Case No.19/2012 in the file of learned SDJM, Rayagada, he was issued with a show cause on 10.06.2013 inter alia proposing therein to disengage him from his services for such criminal activity. Petitioner though submitted his reply on 20.06.2013, without issuing any order of disengagement, Petitioner was not allowed to discharge his duty. Nothing has been indicated in the impugned order also that Petitioner was disengaged from his services with passing of an appropriate order in that regard.

6.1. Be that as it may, since Petitioner on the ground of his implication in the criminal case was disengaged/not allowed to discharge his duty after submission of his reply on 20.06.2013 and in the criminal case so initiated against him he was honourably acquitted vide judgment dtd.30.06.2016 of the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Rayagada in C.T. Case No. 27/2014 under Annexure-5, placing reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Ram Lal as cited (supra), this Court is of the view that Petitioner is required to be re-engaged in his service. Since after his acquittal, Petitioner approached the Opposite Party No.2 time and again and also this Court

// 6 //

by filing W.P.(C) No.12598/2020, the ground on which claim of the Petitioner has been rejected by Opposite Party No.2 vide the impugned order, is not sustainable in the eye of law.

6.2. In view of the aforesaid analysis, this Court is inclined to quash the order dtd.03.12.2022 so passed by Opposite Party No.2 under Annexure-9. While quashing the said order, this Court directs Opposite Party No.2 to re-engage the Petitioner as a Junior Teacher with passing of appropriate order in that regard within a period of four (4) weeks from the date of receipt of this order. Petitioner is directed to produce a copy of this order before Opposite Party No.2 for compliance.

7. Accordingly, the Writ Petition stands disposed of.

(Biraja Prasanna Satapathy) Judge

Subrat

Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACK