Orissa High Court
Somanath Khamari vs ) State Of Odisha ..... Opposite Parties on 24 April, 2025
Author: Aditya Kumar Mohapatra
Bench: Aditya Kumar Mohapatra
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
WP(C) No.7068 of 2025
Somanath Khamari ..... Petitioner
Represented By Adv. -
Akshaya Kumar Sahoo
-versus-
1) State Of Odisha ..... Opposite Parties
2) Addl. Dg Of Police Cum Ig Of Represented By Adv. -
Prisoners And Dcs, Cuttack Mr.S.K.Brahma,ASC
3) Dig Of Police, Sambalpur
4) Senior Supdt. Circle Jail,
Sambalpur
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADITYA KUMAR
MOHAPATRA
ORDER
24.04.2025
Order No.
2. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement
(Virtual/Physical) Mode.
2. Heard Mr. A.K. Sahoo, learned counsel appearing for
the Petitioner and Mr. S.K.Brahma, learned Additional
Standing Counsel for the State.
3. The Petitioner has filed the present Writ Petition
challenging the order dt.04.06.2016 so passed by the Opp.
party No.4 under Annexure-5, thereby dismissing the
Petitioner from his service with immediate effect in terms of
Rule 18(I) of the OCS (CCA) Rule, 1962.
4. Learned counsel for the Petitioner contended that the
Petitioner while continuing as a Warder, he was implicated
in Kuchinda P.S. Case No.162 dt.08.09.2013 corresponding
to G.R. Case No.409 of 2013 in the file of learned S.D.J.M,
Kuchinda. The trial of the case was subsequently taken up
by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kuchinda in T.R.
Case No.3 of 2014. Learned Addl. Sessions Judge vide his
judgment dt.23.04.2016, while holding the Petitioner guilty
for the offences under Sections 323/34 of the I.P.C passed
the following sentence against the Petitioner.
Considering the above submission from
both sides, the convicts are sentenced
to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-(Rupees one
thousand) each, in default, to undergo
S.I for one month each for the offences
under Section 323 of the I.P.C.
4.1. Learned counsel for the Petitioner contended that
challenging the order of conviction and sentence passed in
the aforesaid G.R. Case, the Petitioner approached this
Court in Crl. Appeal No.242 of 2016. This Court vide order
dt.16.05.2016 while admitting the appeal stayed the
realization of fine so imposed by the learned Trial Court.
It is contended that since the order of conviction and
sentence is in the nature of a fine of Rs.1,000/- and that was
stayed by this Court, while admitting the appeal vide order
dt.16.05.2016 under Annexure-3, the Petitioner should not
have been dismissed from service on the ground of such
conviction and sentence vide the impugned order
dt.04.06.2016 under Annexure-5. It is accordingly contended
that the impugned order of dismissal so passed under
Annexure-5 is not sustainable in the eye of law.
5. Learned counsel for the Petitioner further contended
that one of the co-accused who stands on similar footing
like the Petitioner and has been convicted in the aforesaid
G.R.Case initially approached the Orissa Administrative
Tribunal by filing O.A.No.4496(C) of 2016 challenging the
very same order dated 04.06.2016 under Annexure-5. After
abolition of the Tribunal, the matter was transferred to this
Court and renumbered as WPC(OAC) No.4496 of 2016. A
coordinate bench of this Court vide order dated 31.07.2023
allowed the Writ Petition by quashing the impugned order
dated 16.05.2016 under Annexure-4 to that Writ Petition with
a direction to reinstate the Petitioner in service within a
period of two weeks with an observation that the back period
of service from the date of dismissal till reinstatement be
regularised on notional basis and the Petitioner will not be
entitled to get any financial benefit for such period except
counting of such period to calculate the qualifying period of
service for the purpose of pensionary benefit.
6. Mr. Brahma, learned Addl. Standing Counsel on the
other hand while supporting the impugned order made his
submission basing on the stand taken in the counter affidavit
filed by the Opp. Parties.
6.1 It is contended that since the Petitioner was convicted
and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- in default to
undergo S.I for one month and the said order of conviction
has not been stayed by this Court while admitting the
appeal, Petitioner has been rightly dismissed from his
service.
7. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after
going through the materials available on record, this Court
finds that leaned Addl. Sessions Judge, Kuchinda after
hearing on the question of sentence, convicted the Petitioner
and sentenced him to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default, S.I
for one month. The said order of conviction and sentence is
under challenge before this Court in Crl. Appeal No.242 of
2016. This Court further finds that the fine imposed on the
Petitioner in the nature of sentence has been stayed vide
order dt.16.05.2016. On the face of such order passed on
16.05.2016, the authorities could not have dismissed the
petitioner from service taking recourse to the provisions
contained under Rule 18(I) of the OCS ( CCA) Rules, 1962.
7.1. In view of such material irregularities, this Court is
inclined to quash the order dt.04.06.2016 under Annexure-5.
While quashing the same, this Court directs Opp. party No.4
to reinstate the Petitioner in his service within a period of two
(2) weeks from the date of receipt of this order. However,
the break period of service from the date of dismissal till the
date of reinstatement be regularized on notional basis and
the petitioner will not be entitled to get any financial benefit
save and except counting of the period as pensionable
service.
However, the order of reinstatement to be issued in
favour of the Petitioner, shall be subject to the final outcome
of Criminal Appeal No.242 of 2016.
8. The Writ Petition is accordingly allowed and disposed
of with the aforesaid observation and direction.
(A.K.Mohapatra)
Judge
RKS
Designation: AR-CUM-Senior Secretary
Location: High Court of Orissa
Date: 25-Apr-2025 16:34:29
