Orissa High Court
Sarala Dei vs State Of Odisha And Another ..... ... on 18 March, 2025
Author: Aditya Kumar Mohapatra
Bench: Aditya Kumar Mohapatra
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
WP(C) No.1838 of 2025
Sarala Dei ..... Petitioner
Represented By Adv. -
Mr. Sasibhusan Jena
-versus-
State Of Odisha and another ..... Opposite Party
Represented By Adv. -
Mr. Samresh Jena, ASC
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADITYA KUMAR MOHAPATRA
ORDER
18.03.2025
Order No.
04. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement
(Virtual /Physical Mode).
2. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. Perused the writ
petition and documents annexed thereto.
3. Considering the submission made by learned counsel for
the Petitioner that during pendency of criminal trial, filing of
defence by the Petitioner in the disciplinary proceeding will
jeopardize the prospect of the delinquent-Petitioner involved in
the criminal case, this Court finds support for the submission of
learned counsel in the aforesaid context from the decision of the
Hon'blc Apex Court reported in AIR 1999 SC 1416, decided
taking support of the old decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court
reported in AIR 1965 SC 155. Similar view has also been taken
in a judgment reported in (2012) 1 SCC- 442.
4. By filing the present writ petition, the Petitioner has
prayed for stay of the Memorandum No.18422 dated 09.11.2022
under Annexure-5 involving the Petitioner till finalization of the
Criminal Trial vide Cuttack Vigilance P.S. Case No.24 dated
08.11.2021 pending in the court of the learned Special Judge,
Vigilance, Cuttack.
5. Learned counsel for the State draws the attention of this
Court to the charges framed by Criminal Court and in the
Memorandum No.18422 dated 09.11.2022 under Anncxure-5
and contends that the disciplinary proceeding has been initiated
against Petitioner for suppression of information regarding his
involvement in criminal case and, as such, the charges in both
the cases arc different. Therefore, he submits that the ratio
decided in aforesaid Supreme Court judgments are not
applicable to the facts of the present case and the disciplinary
proceeding against the Petitioner should not be stayed awaiting
the verdict in criminal case and further prays for dismissal of the
writ petition.
6. This Court on a careful scrutiny of the charges in both
proceedings partly agrees with the submission made by Mr.
Jena, learned ASC for the State. The charges in criminal case
no doubt forms the basis for the initiation of D.P. in addition to
the charge that such formation was not disclosed to the
employer by the employee in violation of the service Rules.
However, this Court is also of the view that while continuing
with the D.P. the Petitioner would be required to disclose his
defence which might be detrimental to his interest involved in
the criminal trial.
7. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and upon
a careful analysis of the rival contentions and upon a scrutiny of
the writ petition and the documents attached to it, this Court in
the greater interest of justice deems it proper to dispose of the
writ petition by directing that the Disciplinary Proceeding
against the Petitioner shall remain stayed for a period one year
from the date of this order. Further, on production of certified
copy of this order by the Petitioner, the Court in seisin of the
trial of the case arising out of Cuttack Vigilance P.S. Case
No.24 dated 08.11.2021 under Section 7 of the P.C. Act shall
expedite the trial and make every endeavour to conclude the trial
within one year. Parties are directed to cooperate with the trial
court.
8. With the aforesaid observation and direction, the writ
application is disposed
Urgent certified copy of this order be granted on proper
application.
( A.K. Mohapatra)
Judge
Debasis
