02. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid mode.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the Petitioner as well as learned
counsel for the State-Opposite Parties. Perused the writ petition as well
as the documents annexed thereto.
3. Present writ petition has been filed by the Petitioner with the
following prayers:-
And
Issue appropriate direction(s)/order(s) to set
aside the impugned office order dtd. 21.05.2024 under
Annexure-6 issued by the Opp. Party No.3 and further
issue directions to the Opp. Party No.3 to reinstate the
petitioner into his services as a member of the Home
Guards in the interests of justice.
And
Pass such other or further orders as this Hon'ble
Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and
circumstances of the present case."
4. Learned counsel for the Petitioner, at the outset, contended that
the Petitioner was initially engaged as Home Guard under the
Opposite Party No.3 on 25.08.2006. Thereafter on 15.11.2014, the
Petitioner was discharged from service by the Opposite Party No.3 as
he was found involved in a criminal case. Subsequently the Petitioner
faced trial in G.R. Case No.431 of 2014 and eventually he was
acquitted vide judgment dated 26.11.1986. Learned counsel for the
Petitioner further contended that after his acquittal in the criminal
case, the Petitioner has filed a representation on 11.03.2024 before the
Opposite Party No.4 with a prayer to reinstate him in service as he has
been acquitted from all charges in the criminal trial. Since the
representation of the Petitioner was not considered by the Opposite
Parties, he had approached this Court earlier by filing W.P.(C)
No.8118 of 2024. This Court, vide order dated 08.04.2024, disposed
of the said writ petition by granting liberty to the Petitioner to make a
fresh representation before the Opposite Party No.4 with a further
direction to the Opposite Party No.4 to dispose of the representation
within a period of eight weeks. While the matter stood thus, the
Opposite Party No.3 rejected the prayer of the Petitioner for
reinstatement vide order dated 21.05.2024 on the ground that the
Government of Odisha vide Home Department letter dated 23.07.2020
have imposed a ban order on the recruitment of Home Guards and
further the vacant posts of Home Guards have been abolished. Further,
an observation has been made in the said letter that the re-enrolment
of the Petitioner in the Home Guard service might send a wrong signal
to the general public and the same would about the credibility and
integrity of the Home Guards Organization. Being aggrieved by such
order of the Opposite Party No.3 dated 21.05.2024 under Annexure-6,
the Petitioner has approached this Court by filing the present writ
petition.
5. Learned counsel for the State, on the other hand, contended that
pursuant to the order dated 08.04.2024 passed by this Court in
W.P.(C) No.8118 of 2024, the case of the Petitioner was duly
considered by the Opposite Parties. He further contended that since
there was a ban order and the existing posts of the Home Guards have
been abolished, the case of the Petitioner has been rejected by a
speaking order dated 21.05.2024 under Annexure-6 to the writ
petition. On such ground, learned counsel for the State contended that
the Opposite Parties have not committed any illegality in passing the
impugned order dated 21.05.2024.
6. In reply to the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the
State, learned counsel for the Petitioner submitted that in the
meanwhile, Government of Odisha has lifted the ban and pursuant to
such decision, a notification has been issued on 02.01.2025 notifying
the vacancies of Home Guards of each district. He further contended
that pursuant to the aforesaid notification indicating the vacancy
position, an advertisement has also been released in the public domain
to fill up the vacancies. In such view of the matter, learned counsel
for the Petitioner submitted that there is no ban on recruitment of the
Home Guards. As such, the case of the Petitioner can very well be
considered for reinstatement in service.
7. Having heard the learned counsels appearing for the respective
parties and on a careful analysis of their submissions, further taking
into consideration the factual background of the present case, this
Court observes that the Petitioner while working as a Home Guard
was entangled in a criminal case, however, he has subsequently been
acquitted from all charges by virtue of the judgment of the trial court
under Annexure-3 to the writ petition. Thus, in view of the law laid
down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ram Lal vs. State of
Rajasthan & Ors., reported in (2024) 1 SCC 175, and this Court in
Smt. Nirmala Sahoo vs., State of Odisha & others in W.P.(C)
No.25947 of 2022 disposed of on 24.03.2023, the case of the
Petitioner is required to be considered in the light of the law laid down
in the above noted two judgments for reinstatement in service.
8. On a careful scrutiny of the impugned rejected order under
Annexure-6, this Court observes that the claim of the Petitioner for
reinstatement in service has been rejected principally on the ground
that there is a ban order on recruitment of the Home Guards as well as
all existing vacant posts of Home Guards have been abolished.
Moreover, on further scrutiny in the impugned rejected order, it
appears that the Opposite Party No.3, while considering the case of
the Petitioner, has not taken into consideration the judgments referred
to hereinabove. Moreover, the order dated 21.05.2024 gives an
impression that the prayer of the Petitioner has not been rejected
altogether.
9. In the aforesaid backdrop, keeping in view the law laid down by
the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ram Lal's case (supra), and by this
Court in Smt. Nirmala Sahoo's case (supra), this Court deems it
proper to direct the Opposite Party No.3 to reconsider the prayer of
the Petitioner for reinstatement in service strictly in accordance with
the law laid down in the above noted two judgments within a period of
six weeks from the date of communication of a certified copy of this
order. It is further directed that in the event there are no other legal
impediments, the Opposite Party No.3 shall reinstate the Petitioner in
service within a period of four weeks thereafter and before the filling
of the vacancies, as has been advertised pursuant to the Notification
dated 02.01.2025.
10. The writ petition is disposed of with the aforesaid observation
and direction.
( Aditya Kumar Mohapatra )
Judge
Debasis
