Orissa High Court
Raj Kumar Chhotray vs Union Of India And Others .... Opposite ... on 20 August, 2025
Author: Biraja Prasanna Satapathy
Bench: Biraja Prasanna Satapathy
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
W.P.(C) No.27297 of 2023
Raj Kumar Chhotray .... Petitioner
Ms. S. Biswal, Advocate
-versus-
Union of India and Others .... Opposite Parties
Mr. P.K. Parhi, DSGI along with
Mr. D. Harichandan, CGC
CORAM:
JUSTICE BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY
ORDER
20.08.2025
Order No.
07. 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 the order of punishment passed by the
Disciplinary Authority-O.P. No.3 vide order dated
20.09.2021 under Annexure-2, order dated 20.11.2021
so passed by the Appellate Authority-O.P. No.4 under
Annexure-5 and order dated 11.11.2022 so passed by the
Revisional Authority-O.P. No.5 under Annexure-7.
4. It is the main contention of the learned counsel for
the petitioner that the Disciplinary Proceeding as well as
Criminal Proceeding since were initiated on self-same
// 2 //
charges, this Court vide order dated 19.02.2020 in
W.P.(C) No.4038 of 2020 under Annexure-3, passed an
order staying the Disciplinary Proceeding till conclusion
of the Criminal Proceeding in G.R. Case No.6 of 2020 so
pending in the Court of learned JMFC (Rural), Rourkela.
4.1. It is contended that in the Criminal Proceeding so
pending before the learned JMFC(R), Rourkela in G.R.
Case No.6 of 2020, petitioner was acquitted vide
judgment dated 12.01.2021 under Annexure-8. It is
contended that since on self-same charges, petitioner
faced both the proceedings and he has been acquitted in
the Criminal proceeding vide judgment dated 12.01.2021
under Annexure-8 and the same was also produced
before the Disciplinary Authority, but without following
the case law governing the field, petitioner was imposed
with the punishment of reduction of pay vide order dated
20.09.2021 under Annexure-2.
4.2. Even though petitioner moved the Appellate
Authority as well as Revisional Authority, but both the
authorities without proper appreciation of the petitioner's
stand and the decisions governing the field, rejected the
same vide order under Annexure-5 and 7.
4.3. It is contended that 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
// 3 //
followed in the case of Maharana Pratap Singh Vs. The
State of Bihar and Others (Civil Appeal No.5497 of
2025), since petitioner faced both the proceedings on self-
same charges, after being acquitted in the criminal
proceeding, no order of punishment could have been
passed against him in the Disciplinary Proceeding vide
order under Annexure-2, so confirmed vide order under
Annexure-5 and 7.
4.4. 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
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
// 4 //
25.06.2008 refusing to reconsider and review the penalty
respectively, are all illegal and untenable."
4.5. 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."
4.6. It is accordingly contended that the impugned order
of punishment passed under Annexure-2 so confirmed
vide order under Annexure-5 and 7 are not sustainable in
the eye of law and requires interference of this Court.
5. Mr. P.K. Parhi, learned DSGI along with Mr. D.
Harichandan, learned CGC on the other hand contended
that even though charges in both the proceeding are
// 5 //
same, but there is no bar on the part of the Disciplinary
Authority to take a different view while considering the
materials available in the proceeding.
5.1. It is also contended that nature of proof being
different in Criminal Proceeding and Disciplinary
Proceeding, no illegality can be found with the action of
the Disciplinary Authority-O.P. No.3 in imposing the
punishment vide order under Annexure-2. It is also
contended that since the order passed by the Disciplinary
Authority has been confirmed by the Appellate Authority
as well as by the Revisional Authority vide order under
Annexure-5 and 7, no illegality or irregularity can be
found with all those orders. It is accordingly contended
that no interference is called for.
6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and
considering the submissions made, this Court finds that
since the charges in both the proceeding were identical,
this Court while disposing W.P.(C) No.4038 of 2020, vide
order under Annexure-3 observe that Disciplinary
Proceeding will remain stayed till disposal of the Criminal
Proceeding.
6.1. As found from the record, petitioner has been
acquitted in the Criminal Proceeding vide judgment dated
12.01.2021 in G.R. Case No.6 of 2020 under Annexure-8.
But as found from the record, neither the Disciplinary
Authority nor the Appellate Authority and Revisional
// 6 //
Authority have properly appreciated the factum of
acquittal in the Criminal Proceeding, while imposing the
punishment vide order under Annexure-2, so confirmed
vide order under Annexure-5 and 7.
6.2. Placing reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Apex
Court in the case of Ram Lal and Maharana Pratap
Singh as cited (supra), it is the view of this Court that on
the face of such acquittal in the Criminal Proceeding,
petitioner could not have been imposed with the
punishment as has been imposed vide order under
Annexure-2, confirmed vide order under Annexure-5 and
7. Therefore, this Court is inclined to quash orders issued
under Annexures-2, 5 and 7. While quashing all those
orders, this Court directs the Disciplinary Authority-O.P.
No.3 to take a fresh decision in the proceeding, taking
into account the decision in the case of Ram Lal and
Maharana Pratap Singh. Such a fresh decision as
directed be taken within a period of 3 (three) months from
the date of receipt of this order. Petitioner is permitted to
provide a copy of this order along with the citations in the
case of Ram Lal and Maharana Pratap Singh before
O.P. No.3 for compliance.
7. The Writ Petition accordingly stands disposed of.
(Biraja Prasanna Satapathy)
Judge
Basudev
Signed by: BASUDEV SWAIN
Designation: SR. STENO
Reason: Authentication
Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack
Date: 22-Aug-2025 18:51:54
