Duryodhan Naik vs State Of Odisha And
2025 Latest Caselaw 3273 Ori

Orissa High Court

Duryodhan Naik vs State Of Odisha And on 8 August, 2025

Author: Biraja Prasanna Satapathy

Bench: Biraja Prasanna Satapathy

          IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

                      W.P.(C) No.21742 of 2025

        Duryodhan Naik                   ....                   Petitioner
                                                  Mr. A.K. Das, Advocate
                                      -versus-
        State of Odisha and
        Others                           ....           Opposite Parties
                                                   Mr. A. Tripathy, AGA
                           CORAM:
               JUSTICE BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY
                                       ORDER

Order No.                            08.08.2025
      01. 1.     This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement
          (Virtual/Physical) Mode.

2. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

3. The present Writ Petition has been filed inter alia challenging order dated 24.12.2024 so passed by O.P. No.3 under Annexure-7. Vide the said order, claim of the petitioner for his reinstatement by setting aside the order of discharge passed on 21.03.2007 was rejected.

4. It is contended that petitioner because of his implication in Cuttack Vigilance P.S. Case No.34 dated 18.09.2006, was discharged from his services vide order dated 21.03.2007. However, in the said Vigilance Proceeding, petitioner was acquitted vide judgment dated 18.09.2023 in VGR No.34 of 2006 under Annexure-2.

// 2 //

4.1. It is contended that on his acquittal in the Vigilance proceeding, petitioner when moved O.P. No.3 with a prayer to reinstate him in his service by quashing the order of discharge passed by the Commandant on 21.03.2007, the same was rejected vide the impugned order under dated 24.12.2024 Annexure-7.

4.2. It is contended that since the Vigilance proceeding

for which the petitioner was discharged from his services

on 21.03.2007, ended in acquittal vide judgment dated

18.09.2023, 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) so followed in the

case of Maharana Pratap Singh Vs. The State of

Bihar and Others (Civil Appeal No.5497 of 2025),

petitioner is eligible to get the benefit of reinstatement.

Hon'ble Apex Court in Para-13, 25 and 30 of the decision

in the case of Ramlal has held as follows:-

"13. However, if the charges in the departmental enquiry and the criminal court are identical or similar, and if the evidence, witnesses and circumstances are one and the same, then the matter acquires a different dimension. If the court in judicial review concludes that the acquittal in the criminal proceeding was after full consideration of the prosecution evidence and that the prosecution miserably failed to prove the charge, the Court in judicial review can grant redress in certain circumstances. The court will be entitled to exercise its discretion and grant relief, if it concludes that allowing the findings in the disciplinary proceedings to stand

// 3 //

will be unjust, unfair and oppressive. Each case will turn on its own facts. [See G.M. Tank vs. State of Gujarat & Others, (2006) 5 SCC 446, State Bank of Hyderabad vs. P. Kata Rao, (2008) 15 SCC 657 and S. Samuthiram (supra)]

25. Expressions like "benefit of doubt" and "honorably acquitted", used in judgments are not to be understood as magic incantations. A court of law will not be carried away by the mere use of such terminology.

30. In view of the above, we declare that the order of termination dated 31.03.2004; the order of the Appellate Authority dated 08.10.2004; the orders dated 29.03.2008 and 25.06.2008 refusing to reconsider and review the penalty respectively, are all illegal and untenable."

4.3. Hon'ble Apex Court in Para-47 & 50 of the decision

in the case of Maharana Pratap Singh has held as

follows:-

"47. While an acquittal in a criminal case does not automatically entitle the accused to have an order of setting aside of his dismissal from public service following disciplinary proceedings, it is well-established that when the charges, evidence, witnesses, and circumstances in both the departmental inquiry and the criminal proceedings are identical or substantially similar, the situation assumes a different context. In such cases, upholding the findings in the disciplinary proceedings would be unjust, unfair, and oppressive. This is a position settled by the decision in G. M. Tank (supra), since reinforced by a decision of recent origin in Ram Lal v. State of Rajasthan31.

50. The judgment acquitting the appellant reveals that the prosecution "miserably failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt" as both the informant and PW-2 refused to identify the appellant in court. This discussion confirms that the appellant's acquittal was based not on mere technicalities. In Ram Lal (supra), this Court held that terms like "benefit of doubt" or "honourably acquitted"

should not be treated as formalities. The Court's duty is to focus on the substance of the judgment, rather than the terminology used."

4.4. However, without proper appreciation of the same, claim of the petitioner was rejected vide the impugned

// 4 //

order dated 24.12.2024 under Annexure-7. It is accordingly contended that the impugned order is not sustainable in the eye of law.

5. Learned Addl. Govt. Advocate on the other hand contended that since petitioner because of his implication in the Vigilance case was discharged from service on 21.03.2007, no illegality of irregularity can be found with the same. However, even though vide judgment dated 18.09.2023, petitioner was acquitted in the Vigilance proceeding but the other co-accused has been released under the provisions of Probation of Offenders Act.

5.1. It is accordingly contended that since both the accused persons were not acquitted in the Vigilance Proceeding and one of the accused was extended with the benefit in the Probation of Offenders Act, it cannot be held that petitioner was cleanly acquitted in the Vigilance Proceeding. It is accordingly contended that petitioner's claim for re-instatement because of his acquittal in the vigilance proceeding has been rightly rejected and it requires no interference.

6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and considering the submissions made, this Court finds that on his implication in the Vigilance proceeding, petitioner was discharged from his services vide order dated 21.03.2007 of the Commandant, Dhenkanal. It is found that in the Vigilance Proceeding so initiated

// 5 //

against the petitioner and another co-accused vide judgment dated 18.09.2023 under Annexure-2, petitioner was acquitted from the charges. Placing reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Ram Lal so followed in the case of Maharana Pratap Singh as cited (supra), it is the view of this Court that since petitioner has been acquitted in the Vigilance proceeding for which he was discharged from his services, petitioner is eligible and entitled to get the benefit of reinstatement. Therefore, this Court is inclined to quash order dated 24.12.2024 so passed under Annexure-7. While quashing the same, this Court directs Opp. Party No.3 to pass an order of reinstatement in favour of the petitioner reinstating the petitioner as a Home Guard. This Court directs O.P. No.3 to pass appropriate order as directed within a period of 4 (four) weeks from the date of receipt of this order.

7. The Writ Petition stands disposed of accordingly.

(Biraja Prasanna Satapathy) Judge

Basudev

Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack