Orissa High Court
Krushna Chandra Parna vs State Of Odisha And Others ..... ... on 13 February, 2025
Author: Aditya Kumar Mohapatra
Bench: Aditya Kumar Mohapatra
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
WP(C) No.186 of 2025
Krushna Chandra Parna ..... Petitioner
Represented By Adv. -
Saswati Mohapatra
-versus-
State Of Odisha and others ..... Opposite Parties
Ms. B.K. Sahu, AGA
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADITYA KUMAR
MOHAPATRA
ORDER
13.02.2025
Order No.
02. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid mode.
2. Heard learned counsel for the Petitioner as well as learned
counsel for the Opposite Parties. Perused the writ application as well
as the documents annexed thereto.
3. The Petitioner has filed the present writ application with the
following prayer:
"Under the aforesaid facts and circumstances
the petitioner humbly prayed that this Hon'ble
Court may graciously be pleased to direct order
the state Opp.parties particularly the Op. Party
No.3 to reinstate the petitioner in service of the
Home Guard within stipulated period as
prescribed by this Hon'ble Court.
And may pass such other Order / Orders, as
would be just fit and proper."
4. The present writ petition has been filed with a prayer for
direction to the Opposite Party to reinstate the Petitioner in service as
a Home Guard within a stipulated period of time.
5. Learned counsel for the Petitioner at the outset contended that
the Petitioner, who belongs to the ST community, was engaged as a
Home Guard w.e.f. 31.12.2009. While he was discharging his duty,
the Petitioner was entangled in a criminal case on 23.06.2019. Due to
his entanglement in the aforesaid criminal case, the Petitioner was
initially arrested. Thereafter, he was released on bail. However, the
Opposite Parties, taking into consideration the detention of the
Petitioner in custody, terminated the service of the Petitioner.
Learned counsel for the Petitioner further contended that the
Petitioner has been acquitted in the meantime, vide judgment dated
23.08.2023 by the Chief Judicial Magistrate-cum-Asst. Sessions
Judge, Deogarh. Further, referring to the judgment of the trial Court
under Annexure-3 to the writ petition, learned counsel for the
Petitioner submitted that the learned CJM, Asst. Sessions Judge,
Deogarh has acquitted the accused persons including the present
Petitioner with the observation that the prosecution has failed
miserably to prove the ingredients of the offences alleged against the
accused persons. Hence, the accused persons were acquitted under
Section 235(1) of the Cr.P.C.
6. Learned counsel for the Petitioner further contended that the
Petitioner has been acquitted without any observation. And such
acquittal is not on the ground of giving any benefit doubt to the
accused persons. Since the prosecution has failed to establish the
allegations against the present Petitioner, he has been acquitted. On
such factual background, learned counsel for the Petitioner contended
that the aforesaid acquittal is to be treated as honorable acquittal
since no material whatsoever was placed before the learned trial
Court indicating the involvement of the present Petitioner in the
alleged crime. In the aforesaid context, learned counsel for the
Petitioner also referred to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in G.M. Tank v. State of Gujarat & Anr. reported in AIR 2006
SC 2129.
7. Learned counsel for the State on the other hand contended that
there is no instruction in the matter. She further contended that in the
event the Petitioner has been acquitted, the Petitioner should have
approached the competent authority with a prayer for his
reinstatement in service. She further submitted that a perusal of the
writ petition reveals that the Petitioner has already approached the
competent authority by filing a representation on 05.11.2023 under
Annexure-4 to the writ petition. In such view of the matter, learned
counsel for the State submitted that in the event, the representation is
still pending for consideration, she will have no objection if this
Court directs the competent authority, i.e. Superintendent of Police,
Deogarh, Opposite Party No.3, to consider the representation of the
Petitioner under Annexure-4 strictly in accordance with law and in
terms of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court within a
stipulated period of time.
8. Having heard the learned counsels appearing for the respective
parties, on a careful consideration of the submissions made by the
parties, further keeping in view the documents on record as well as
the pleadings of the writ petition, further keeping in view the fact that
the Petitioner has been acquitted by the trial Court vide judgment
dated 23.08.2024 under Annexure-3 to the writ petition, this Court
deems it proper to dispose of the present writ petition at the stage of
admission by directing the Opposite Party No.3 to consider the
representation of the Petitioner dated 05.11.2023under Annexure-4, if
the same is still pending, strictly in accordance with law by referring
to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court mentioned
hereinabove, within a period of eight weeks from the date of
communication of a certified copy of this order. The Opposite Party
No.3 shall do well to consider and dispose of the representation of
the Petitioner by passing a speaking and reasoned order and the final
order so passed be communicated to the Petitioner within ten days
from the date of making such order.
9. With the a foresaid observations/directions, the writ petition
stands disposed of.
( Aditya Kumar Mohapatra )
Judge
S.K. Rout
Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Page 4 of 4.
