Selina Parichha vs State Of Odisha & Ors. ..... Opposite ...
2025 Latest Caselaw 10826 Ori

Orissa High Court

Selina Parichha vs State Of Odisha & Ors. ..... Opposite ... on 9 December, 2025

Author: Biraja Prasanna Satapathy

Bench: Biraja Prasanna Satapathy

      IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
                 WP(C) No.26120 of 2022
Selina Parichha           .....         Petitioner
                                                            Ms. B.K. Pattanaik, Advocate
                                    -versus-
State of Odisha & Ors.                .....                   Opposite Parties
                                                             Mr. A.K. Pati, ASC


                    CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY

                         ORDER

09.12.2025 Order No.05 I.A. No. 21945 of 2025

1. This matter is taken up through hybrid mode.

2. Heard learned counsel appearing for the Parties.

3. Considering the grounds taken, judgment dtd.20.11.2025 is hereby recalled.

4. I.A. stands disposed of.

(BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY) Judge

06. W.P.(C) No. 26120 of 2022

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 Arrangement

(Virtual/Physical) Mode.

2. Heard learned counsel appearing for the Parties.

3. The present Writ Petition has been filed inter alia challenging order

dtd.08.10.2014 so passed under Annexure-8 by the disciplinary

authority-Opposite Party No.3, further confirmed by the appellate

authority-Opposite Party No.2 vide order dtd.10.06.2015 under

Annexure-10 and so also the rejection of the husband of the

Petitioner's claim to set aside the order of punishment after acquittal

of her husband in the vigilance proceeding, which has been initiated

on self-same charges in Berhampur Vigilance P.S. Case No.43

dtd.04.12.2009, vide order dtd.03.02.2022 under Annexure-13.

4. It is the case of the Petitioner that husband of the Petitioner on his

implication in Berhampur Vigilance P.S. Case No.43,

dtd.04.12.2009, when was arrested and remained in custody w.e.f.

05.12.2009, he was placed under suspension vide order

dtd.05.12.2009 and the proceeding was also initiated vide Ganjam

District Proceeding No.16 dtd.31.12.2010 under Annexure-1.

4.1. It is contended that such a proceeding was initiated because of

the husband of the Petitioner's implication in the aforesaid

Berhampur Vigilance P.S. No.43 dtd.04.12.2009.

4.2. Learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner contended that

husband of the Petitioner prior to disposal of the vigilance proceeding

was imposed with the punishment of one Black Mark and period of

suspension from 05.12.2009 to 14.02.2011, was treated as such vide

order dtd.18.10.2014 of Opposite Party No.3 under Annexure-8.

Appeal preferred by the husband of the Petitioner was also rejected

by the appellate authority-Opposite Party No.2 vide the impugned

order dtd.10.06.2015 under Annexure-10.

4.3. However, since in the vigilance proceeding, husband of the

Petitioner was acquitted vide judgment dtd.10.05.2018 under

Annexure-11-Series, Petitioner seeking quashing of the order of

punishment moved an application before Opposite Party No.2 on the

ground that because of acquittal of her husband in the vigilance

proceeding, the order of punishment passed on 18.10.2014 by

Opposite Party No.3 is required to be set aside. Claim of the husband

of the Petitioner, when was not considered, he approached this Court

by filing W.P.(C) No.12784 of 2021. This Court vide order

dtd.07.06.2021 under Annexure-12, when directed for consideration

of case of the husband of the Petitioner's grievance, the same was

rejected vide order dtd.03.02.2022 under Annexure-13 of Opposite

Party No.2.

4.4. Learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner contended that in

the departmental proceeding so initiated, the enquiry officer after

conducting the inquiry, submitted the report under Annexure-4,

holding therein that the charges against the husband of the Petitioner

could not be established. However, on the face of such report

submitted by the enquiry officer, the departmental authority-Opposite

Party No.3 proceeded with the matter and imposed the punishment

vide order dtd.18.10.2014 under Annexure-8.

4.5. The appellate authority-Opposite Party No.2 so moved, also

rejected the appeal vide order dtd.10.06.2015 under Annexure-10.

4.6. However, since in the vigilance proceeding, husband of the

Petitioner was acquitted vide judgment dtd.10.05.2018, he moved

Opposite Party No.2, with a request to set aside the order of

punishment so imposed vide order dtd.18.10.2014 under Annexure-

8, and confirmed vide order dtd.10.06.2015 under Annexure-10.

However, such claim of the husband of the Petitioner was rejected

without proper appreciation vide order dtd.03.02.2022 under

Annexure-13.

4.7. Placing reliance on 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),

it is contended that Petitioner since was acquitted in the vigilance

proceeding and such acquittal is not on the ground of benefit of doubt,

but a case of clean acquittal, in view of the ratio decided in the above

noted two cases, husband of the Petitioner is eligible and entitled to

get the benefit as prayed for in the Writ Petition with quashing of the

order of punishment so passed against husband of the Petitioner vide

order under Annexure-8, further confirmed vide order under

Annexure-10 and so also order dtd.03.02.2022 under Annexure-13.

4.8. 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."

4.9. 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."

5. Mr. P.K. Panda, learned Addl. Standing Counsel for the State on

the other hand made his submission basing on the stand taken in the

counter affidavit. It is contended that since there is no bar to proceed

in the Departmental Proceeding as well as the criminal proceeding,

no illegality or irregularity can be found with regard to initiation of

both the proceedings against the husband of the Petitioner.

5.1. It is also contended that since husband of the Petitioner was only

acquitted vide judgment dtd.10.05.2018 in the vigilance proceeding

and by that time he has already been imposed with the punishment

vide order under Annexure-8, confirmed vide order under Annexure-

10, no illegality or irregularity can be found with the said order.

Husband of the Petitioner's prayer to set aside the order of

punishment after his acquittal in the vigilance proceeding vide

judgment dtd.10.05.2018 was duly considered and rejected vide order

dtd.03.02.2022 under Annexure-13.

5.2. It is contended that in view of the provisions contained in the

Resolution issued by the GA & PG Department on 02.03.1966 under

Annexure-D/3, even if a delinquent officer is acquitted in a criminal

case, that does not bar the jurisdiction of the departmental authority

to institute departmental proceeding on the same cause of action or

on identical matter and it is entirely the discretion of the authority

concerned. It is also contended that an officer already acquitted, may

be found guilty in a departmental inquiry, as in the latter, a less

rigorous stand and of evidence is insisted upon. The findings of the

criminal court are also not binding in the disciplinary proceedings.

5.3. It is accordingly contended that in view of stipulation contained

in Annexure-D/3, even though husband of the Petitioner has been

acquitted in the vigilance proceeding, that is not a ground to set aside

the order of punishment already imposed prior to his acquittal vide

order under Annexure-8 further confirmed vide order under

Annexure-10.

5.4. It is accordingly contended that prayer of the husband of the

Petitioner to set aside the punishment after his acquittal in the

vigilance proceeding has been rightly rejected vide the impugned

under Annexure-13 and none of the orders require any interference.

It is also contended that the proceeding has been conducted in

accordance with the Rules and there is no allegation regarding

violation of any statutory rule or non-compliance of the principle of

natural justice.

6. Having heard learned counsel appearing for the Parties and

considering the submission made, this Court finds that because of

implication of the Petitioner's husband in the vigilance proceeding in

Berhampur Vigilance P.S. No.43 dtd.04.12.2009, the proceeding in

question was initiated against the husband of the Petitioner vide

Ganjam District Proceeding No.16 dtd.31.12.2010 under Annexure-

1.

6.1. However, during pendency of the vigilance proceeding, the

disciplinary authority-Opposite Party No.3 on the face of the enquiry

report submitted under Annexure-4, imposed the order of punishment

vide order dtd.18.10.2014 under Annexure-8. Vide the said order

husband of the Petitioner was imposed with the punishment of one

Black Mark and the period of suspension from 05.12.2009 to

14.03.2011 was treated as such.

6.2. Appeal preferred by the husband of the Petitioner against such

order of punishment under Annexure-9, was rejected by Opposite

Party No.2 vide his order dtd.10.06.2015 under Annexure10.

However, after acquittal of the Petitioner's husband in the vigilance

proceeding vide judgment dtd.10.05.2018 under Annexure-11-Series,

husband of the Petitioner moved Opposite Party No.2 with a prayer

to set aside the order of punishment as he has been given a clean

acquittal in the vigilance proceeding. Findings of the learned

Vigilance Judge in Para- 16 of the judgment reads as follows:-

"16. In view of my above discussion and an analysis of evidence on record, I am of the view that the prosecution has miserably failed to bring home the charge against

the accused for the offence under sec.7 and under sec.13(2) read with sec.13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 beyond all reasonable doubt. Accordingly, the accused is found not guilty of the above offences and is acquitted thereof under sec. 248(1) of Cr.P.C. He is set at liberty forth with. His bail bond be cancelled and surety be discharged".

6.3. Claim of the Petitioner's husband however was rejected vide

order dtd.03.02.2022 under Annexure-13. Since the departmental

proceeding was initiated against the husband of the Petitioner because

of his implication in the vigilance proceeding and in the vigilance

proceeding, husband of the Petitioner has been acquitted vide

judgment dtd.10.05.2018 and it is a case of clean acquittal, this Court

placing reliance on the decisions in the case of Ram Lal so followed

in the case of Maharana Pratap Singh, is of the view that the order

of punishment imposed vide order dtd.18.10.2014 under Annexure-8,

confirmed vide order dtd.10.06.2018 under Annexure-10, should

have been set-aside in consideration of the application moved under

Annexure-12. But such prayer of the husband of the Petitioner was

rejected vide order dtd.03.02.2022 under Annexure-13.

6.4. This Court in view of the aforesaid analysis, is inclined to quash

order dtd.18.10.2014 so issued under Annexure8, further confirmed

by the appellate authority vide order dtd.10.06.2015 under Annexure-

10 and so also order dtd.03.02.2022 so issued under Annexure-13.

While quashing all those orders, this Court directs Opposite Party

No.3 to treat the period of suspension as leave due and admissible and

extend the benefit accordingly.

6.5. However, it is observed that Petitioner will not be entitled to get

any financial benefit for the period her husband remained in custody

i.e. 05.12.2009 to 16.12.2009. This Court directs Opposite Party No.3

to pass a fresh order within a period of six (6) weeks from the date of

receipt of this order and consequential financial benefit be also

extended within the aforesaid time period.

7. Accordingly, the Writ Petition stands disposed of.

(BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY) Judge Sneha

Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack