Selina Parichha vs State Of Odisha & Others .... Opp. ...
2025 Latest Caselaw 10244 Ori

Orissa High Court

Selina Parichha vs State Of Odisha & Others .... Opp. ... on 20 November, 2025

Author: Biraja Prasanna Satapathy

Bench: Biraja Prasanna Satapathy

  IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

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

 In the matter of an application under Article 226 & 227 of
 the Constitution of India, 1950.
                               ..................


Selina Parichha                        ....                   Petitioner

                               -versus-


State of Odisha & Others               ....               Opp. Parties




      For Petitioners            : Ms. B.K. Pattanaik, Advocate

      For Opp. Parties          : Mr. S.P. Das,
                                   Addl. Standing Counsel


PRESENT:


THE HONBLE JUSTICE BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY

 Date of Hearing: 20.11.2025 and Date of Judgment: 20.11.2025
 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 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 // 2 //

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 Petitioner's claim to set aside the order of punishment after his acquittal 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 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 his implication in the aforesaid Berhampur Vigilance P.S. No.43 dtd.04.12.2009.

4.2. Learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner contended that 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 Petitioner was also rejected by the appellate

// 3 //

authority-Opposite Party No.2 vide the impugned order dtd.10.06.2015 under Annexure-10.

4.3. However, since in the vigilance proceeding, 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 his acquittal 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 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 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 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 //

4.6. However, since in the vigilance proceeding, 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 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, 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 him 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 Ramlal 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

// 5 //

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.

                                   // 6 //




       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 Petitioner.

5.1. It is also contended that since 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. 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

// 7 //

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 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 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

// 8 //

finds that because of his implication in the vigilance proceeding in Berhampur Vigilance P.S. No.43 dtd.04.12.2009, the proceeding in question was initiated against 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 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 Petitioner against such order of punishment under Annexure-9, was rejected by Opposite Party No.2 vide his order dtd.10.06.2015 under Annexure-

10. However, after his acquittal in the vigilance proceeding vide judgment dtd.10.05.2018 under Annexure-11-Series, 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

// 9 //

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 however was rejected vide order dtd.03.02.2022 under Annexure-13. Since the departmental proceeding was initiated against the Petitioner because of his implication in the vigilance proceeding and in the vigilance proceeding 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 Ramlal 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 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 Annexure- 8, 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 he remained in custody i.e. 05.12.2009 to 16.12.2009. This

// 10 //

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

Orissa High Court, Cuttack Dated the 20th November, 2025/Subrat

Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACK