Orissa High Court
Santosh Kumar Sahoo vs Principal Cum Chief Security ..... ... on 19 March, 2025
Author: Aditya Kumar Mohapatra
Bench: Aditya Kumar Mohapatra
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
WP(C) No.7228 of 2025
Santosh Kumar Sahoo ..... Petitioner
Represented By Adv. -
Dinesh Kumar Panda
-versus-
Principal Cum Chief Security ..... Opposite Parties
Commissioner, R.p.f., Ecr, Bbsr
and others
Represented By Adv. -
Mr. B.S. Rayaguru,
S.P.C.
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADITYA KUMAR
MOHAPATRA
ORDER
19.03.2025
Order No.
01. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual
/Physical 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 of the case, it
is therefore, prayed that this Hon'ble Court may graciously
be pleased to direct the opp. party No. 1 to dispose of the
revision petition pending before him vide Annexure - 5 dated
12.12.2022 within a stipulated period taking into the
judgment passed in Ram Lai vrs State of Rajastan and Others
reported in (2024) 1 Supreme Court Cases 175,
And further to set aside the order passed by the Disciplinary
Authority (opp. party No. 3) dated 19.07.2018 vide Annexure
- 2 and order of the Appellate Authority (opp. party No. 2)
dated 19.06.2019 vide Annexure - 3.
And also to pay all service and financial benefits
retrospectively and accordingly pension and retirement dues
be paid forthwith,
And pass any other order (s) or issue direction (s) as may be
deemed fit and proper in the bonafide interest of justice."
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner at the outset contended that
while the petitioner was serving as a constable, Odisha Police under
the RPF, he was served with a memorandum of charges dated
06.06.2017. Accordingly, a departmental proceeding was drawn up
against the present petitioner. Thereafter, on 19.07.2018, the
petitioner was disengagement from service. Challenging the aforesaid
order dated 19.07.2018, the petitioner approached the appellate
authority by filing an appeal. The appellate authority, vide order
dated 01.07.2019, dismissed the appeal thereby confirming the order
passed by the disciplinary authority. In the meantime the criminal
case was initiated against the petitioner bearing C.T. No.2(CC) No. 4
of 2016 in the Court of learned S.D.J.M., Athagarh vide judgment
dated 30.09.2022, petitioner was acquitted of all charges in the
abovenoted criminal case. After disposal of the aforesaid criminal
case, the petitioner again moved the Opposite party No.1 by filing a
detailed representation on 12.12.2022. Since no decision was taken
on his revision petition, the petitioner was compelled to approach this
Court by filing W.P.(C) No.6177 of 2023. This Court vide order
dated 10.03.2023, disposed of the writ application by directing the
Opposite Party No.1 to consider the revision petition of the petitioner
in accordance with law within a period of three months.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner further contended that after
disposal of the writ application, the petitioner has again approached
the Opposite Party No.1 for early disposal of the pending revision
petition. The Opposite Party No.1 vide order dated 07.06.2023
communicated to the petitioner that since the state has preferred a
leave application bearing CRLLP No.26 of 2023 and the same is
pending before the Hon'ble High Court of Orissa, the revision
petition preferred by the petitioner cannot be disposed of unless the
leave application is disposed of by the Hon'ble High Court. He
further contended that vide order dated 06.08.2024, the CRLLP
No.26 of 2023 was dismissed. After dismissal of the CRLLP
application filed by the State-Opposite Parties, the petitioner again
approached the Opposite party No.1 by filing the representation on
20.08.2024 under Annexure-9 to the writ application.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner at this juncture submitted
that since the petitioner has been acquitted in the criminal case and
departmental proceeding having been initiated on the self-same
charges, is unsustainable in law and, as a result, the order of
punishment imposed on the petitioner, i.e. disengagement from
service, is unsustainable in law. He further referred to the judgment
in Hobn'ble Supreme Court in Ram Lal vs. State of Rajastan and
others reported in (2024) 1 SC 175 with regard to reinstatement of
the petitioner after his acquittal in the criminal case and contended
that applying the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in
the aforesaid judgment the petitioner should have been reinstated in
service. Since the opposite parties have not taken a filing decision
with respect to the petitioner after dismissal of the CRLLP
application and keeping in view the law laid down by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in Ram Lal's Case, the petitioner was again
compelled to approach this Court by filing the present writ
application.
7. Considering the submissions made by the learned counsel for
the petitioner, further keeping in view the factual background of the
present case, this Court observes that the revision petition of the
petitioner has not been disposed of despite such order dated
10.03.2023 on the ground that the State has preferred a leave petition
before this Court against the judgment of acquittal of the petitioner.
Further, the order under Annexure-8 reveals that the CRLLP No.26
of 2023 preferred by the state has been dismissed vide order dated
06.08.2024. In such view of the matter, this Court is of the view that
there is no other legal impediment in considering the revision petition
of the petitioner by the Opposite Party No.1. Accordingly, this Court
deems it proper to dispose of the writ application by directing the
Opposite party No.1 to consider and dispose of the representation of
the petitioner under Annexure-5 dated 12.12.2022 by taking into
consideration the aforesaid facts, particularly the fact that the CRLLP
application has already been dismissed vide order dated 06.08.2024
under Annexure-8 and further by applying the ratio law laid down by
the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ram Lal's case (supra) within a
period of eight weeks from the date of communication of a certified
copy of today's order. The final decision so taken by the Opposite
Parties be communicated to the petitioner within ten days thereafter.
8. With the aforesaid observations and directions, the Writ
Petition stands disposed of.
9. Issue urgent certified copy of this order as per Rules.
( A.K. Mohapatra )
Judge
Rubi
Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Page 4 of 4.
