Ajay Kumar Jena vs State Of Odisha & Anr. .... Opposite ...
2025 Latest Caselaw 10825 Ori

Orissa High Court

Ajay Kumar Jena vs State Of Odisha & Anr. .... Opposite ... on 9 December, 2025

Author: Biraja Prasanna Satapathy

Bench: Biraja Prasanna Satapathy

               IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

                               W.P.(C) No. 20832 of 2022

      In the matter of an application under Articles 226 & 227 of the
  Constitution of India.
                                       ..................

        Ajay Kumar Jena                                ....                Petitioner

                                                   -versus-

        State of Odisha & Anr.                         ....               Opposite Parties



       For Petitioner         :       Mr. G.R. Sethi, Advocate

       For Opp. Parties :             Mr. C.K. Pradhan
                                      Addl. Govt. Advocate

PRESENT:

   THE HON'BLE JUSTICE BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY

   ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
       Date of Hearing: 09.12.2025 & Date of Judgment: 09.12.2025
   ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

   Biraja Prasanna Satapathy, J.

1. This matter is taken up through hybrid mode.

2. Heard Mr. G.R. Sethi, learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner

and Mr. C.K. Pradhan, learned Addl. Govt. Advocate appearing for

the Opp. Parties.

// 2 //

3. The present writ petition has been filed inter alia challenging the

impugned order dtd.30.06.2022 so passed by Opp. Party No. 2 under

Annexure-5, confirmed by the Govt.-Opp. Party No. 1 vide order

dtd.30.10.2021 under Annexure-7.

4. It is contended that because of the implication of the Petitioner in

Berhampur Vigilance P.S. Case No. 56 dtd.20.12.2011, the

proceeding in question was initiated against the Petitioner vide

Memorandum dtd.04.07.2012 vide Ganjam District Proceeding No. 30

of 2012.

4.1. Learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner contended that in the

vigilance proceeding so initiated in Berhampur Vigilance P.S. Case

No. 56 dtd.20.12.2011, Petitioner was acquitted vide Judgment

dtd.22.09.2015 so passed by the learned Special Judge, Vigilance,

Berhampur in G.R. Case No. 56 of 2011. Copy of the judgment so

filed by way of a memo be kept in record.

4.2. Learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner contended that even

though in the vigilance proceeding, Petitioner was acquitted vide

Judgment dtd.22.09.2015, but in the disciplinary proceeding so

initiated on self-same charges, Petitioner was imposed with the

// 3 //

punishment of two black marks vide order dtd.30.06.2019 of Opp.

Party No. 2 under Annxure-5.

4.3. It is also contended that factum of acquittal of the Petitioner in the

vigilance proceeding though was brought to the notice of the

disciplinary authority-Opp. Party No. 2, but the same was not properly

appreciated while imposing the order of punishment vide order under

Annexure-5.

4.4. It is also contended that challenging such order of punishment,

Petitioner though moved an appeal before Opp. Party No. 1 under

Annexure-6, but the appellate authority as like the disciplinary

authority also without proper appreciation of the factum of acquittal of

the Petitioner in the vigilance proceeding, upheld the order of

punishment while rejecting the appeal vide order dtd.30.10.2021

under Annexure-7.

4.5. It is contended that since both the proceedings were initiated on

self-same charges and Petitioner was acquitted in the vigilance

proceeding vide Judgment dtd.22.09.2015, 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

// 4 //

the case of Maharana Pratap Singh Vs. The State of Bihar and

Others (Civil Appeal No.5497 of 2025), Petitioner could not have

been imposed with the punishment of two black marks.

4.6. Hon'ble Apex Court in Para-13, 25 and 30 of the decision in the case of Ram Lal 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)]

xxx xxx xxx

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.

xxx xxx xxx

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."

// 5 //

4.7. 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.

xxx xxx xxx

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."

4.8. It is also contended that following the decision in the case of Ram

Lal as well as Maharana Pratap Singh, this Court in the case of

Hemanta Kumar Bhoi vs. State of Odisha & Ors. (W.P.(C) No.

27964 of 2024 disposed of on 18.09.2025) interfered with such nature

of punishment. View of this Court in Para 7.1 to 7.4 of the said

judgment reads as follows:-

// 6 //

"7.1. After his acquittal, prayer of the Petitioner to get the benefit of reinstatement was rejected vide order dtd.22.04.2024 under Annexure-9, further confirmed by the appellate authority-Opposite Party No.3 vide order dtd.28.08.2024 under Annexure-12.

7.2. Following the decision in the case of Ram Lal so followed in the case of Maharana Pratap Singh and the extension of the benefit of reinstatement in favour of one such convicted employee after his acquittal, this Court is of the view that the ground on which claim of the Petitioner was rejected is not sustainable in the eye of law.

7.3. Therefore, this Court following the aforesaid decisions in the case of Ram Lal and Maharana Pratap Singh and the benefit extended in favour of similarly situated convicted employee, is of the view that Petitioner is eligible and entitled to get the benefit of reinstatement.

7.4. Therefore, this Court while quashing the order of dismissal dtd.30.06.2015 under Annexure-5 and rejection of the prayer for reinstatement vide order dtd.22.04.2024 and 28.08.2024 under Annexure-9 and Annexure-12, directs Opposite Party No.4 to pass an order of reinstatement in favour of the Petitioner within a period of four (4) weeks from the date of receipt of this order. The break period of service be regularized in accordance with law."

5. Mr. C.K. Pradhan, learned Addl. Govt. Advocate on the other hand

made his submission basing on the stand taken in the counter affidavit

so filed by Opp. Party No. 2. It is contended that even though the

charges in both the proceedings are same, but since the proof in

// 7 //

departmental proceeding is different to the proof to be made in a

criminal proceeding, acquittal in the vigilance proceeding has got no

meaning while taking a final decision on the issue involved in the

departmental proceeding.

5.1. It is also contended that parameter for disposal of the

departmental proceeding and criminal proceeding being separate, even

though Petitioner was acquitted in the vigilance proceeding, that

cannot be a ground to exonerate the Petitioner in the departmental

proceeding. Stand taken in Para 9 of the counter affidavit reads as

follows:-

"9. That, in reply to the averments made in paragraph- 12 of the Writ Petition, it is humbly submitted that Proof in departmental proceeding and Criminal Case stand on two different footings of proof. In criminal case, Prosecution needs to prove their case beyond all reasonable doubts while departmental proceeding preponderance of probability is enough. It was the bounden duty of the delinquent to initiate criminal prosecution treating the report filed by the victim as FIR, which is a case of moral turpitude.

There is no glaring infirmity or illegality in the enquiry proceedings and the finding of guilty by the enquiring officer is based on oral and documentary evidence and record and the disciplinary authority has considered the same and has rightly imposed punishment on the petitioner.

// 8 //

All the authorities have applied mind and concurred with the finding of the enquiring officer and have affirmed the punishment imposed. Therefore, this Hon'ble Court should not show any further leniency to the petitioner where the delinquency has been well proved by oral and documentary evidence during enquiry proceeding.

The averments made by the petitioner that, under Rule- 834(a) of the Orissa Police Manual reveals that, "No more than one black mark shall be awarded or any one offence except when moral turpitude.

It is to note here that, an employee in the uniformed service presupposes a higher level of integrity as such a person is expected to uphold the law and on the contrary, such a service born in deceit and subterfuge cannot be tolerated. The standard expected of a person intended to serve in uniformed service is quite distinct from other services and therefore, did not comply with the superior authority's orders can be seriously viewed and the ultimate decision of the Disciplinary authority cannot be faulted."

6. Having heard learned counsel appearing for the Parties and

considering the submissions made, this Court finds that Petitioner

while continuing in service, he was implicated in Berhampur

Vigilance P.S. Case No. 56 dtd.20.12.2011 corresponding to G.R.

Case No. 56 of 2011 (V) in the file of learned Special Judge,

Vigilance, Berhampur. Because of his implication in the aforesaid

vigilance case, Ganjam District Proceeding No. 30 of 2012 was

// 9 //

initiated against the Petitioner vide Charge Memo dtd.02.07.2012

under Annexure-1.

6.1. It is not disputed by either of the Parties that in the departmental

proceeding duly participated by filing written statement of defence as

well as in the enquiry. However, it is found that prior to disposal of

the disciplinary proceeding, Petitioner was acquitted in the vigilance

proceeding vide judgment dtd.22.09.2015. Even though such factum

of acquittal was produced before the disciplinary authority-Opp. Party

No. 2, but Opp. Party No. 2 while disposing the disciplinary

proceeding so initiated in Ganjam District Proceeding No. 30 of 2012

vide order dtd.30.06.2019 under Annexure-5, imposed the punishment

of two black marks on the Petitioner. The said order passed by the

disciplinary authority-Opp. Party No. 2 has been confirmed by Opp.

Party No. 1 while rejecting the appeal vide order dtd.30.04.2021 under

Annexure-7.

6.2. Since it is not disputed that the charges in both the proceedings

are same and Petitioner has been acquitted in the vigilance

proceeding, placing reliance on the decision in the case of Ram Lal so

followed in Maharana Pratap Singh and by this Court in the case of

Hemanta Kumar Bhoi as cited supra, it is the view of this Court that

// 10 //

because of his acquittal in the vigilance proceeding, Petitioner could

not have been imposed with the punishment in the disciplinary

proceeding.

6.3. Therefore, this Court is inclined to quash order dtd.30.06.2019 so

passed by Opp. Party No. 2 under Annexure-5 and further order

passed by Opp. Party No. 1 on 30.10.2021 under Annexure-7. While

quashing both the orders, this Court allows the writ petition.

7. The writ petition stands disposed of accordingly.

(BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY) Judge Orissa High Court, Cuttack Dated the 9th December, 2025/Sneha

Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack