Orissa High Court
Praveen P.V vs Union Of India & Ors on 27 November, 2025
Author: Biraja Prasanna Satapathy
Bench: Biraja Prasanna Satapathy
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
W.P.(C) No.24680 of 2025
Praveen P.V.
.... Petitioner
Ms. S.S. Jena, Advocate
-versus-
Union of India & Ors.
.... Opposite Parties
Mr.P.K. Parhi, DSGI along with
Mr. D. Gochhayat, CGC
CORAM:
JUSTICE BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY
ORDER
Order No. 27.11.2025
06. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid
Arrangement (Virtual/Physical) Mode.
2. Heard learned counsel appearing for the Parties.
3. Pursuant to the order dtd.25.11.2025 Mr. Satya Dev
Arya-Opposite Party No.4 appeared in person.
4. The present Writ Petition has been filed inter alia
with the following prayer:-
"The petitioner therefore most humbly prays that this
Hon'ble Court be graciously pleased to issue a Rule
NISI, calling upon the opposite parties to show cause;
As to why the impugned orders dated 25.07.2016,
13.10.2016, 15.02.17 and 03.04.2024 at Annexure- 11,
13, 14 and 18 respectively passed by the Opposite
Party authorities in removing the petitioner from his
service, shall not be declared as illegal and be quashed;
And as to why appropriate writ or writs shall not be
issued directing the opposite parties the Opposite Party
// 2 //
authorities to reinstate the petitioner in his service
forthwith along with all consequential benefits;
And if the opposite parties fail to show cause or show
insufficient cause, this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to
make the said Rule absolute;
And be further may be pleased to pass such other order
orders as this Hon'ble Court, deems fit and proper in the
peculiar facts of the present case and which would
afford complete relief to the Petitioner;
And for this act of kindness, the petitioner shall as in
duty bound ever pray."
4.1. It is contended that Petitioner while continuing as a
constable and placed in the CISF Unit, Nalco, Damanjodi,
because of his implication in a criminal case and
consequential arrest by the Kerala Police on 30.08.2015
in FIR No.1132 / 2015 dtd.27.08.2015 under Sections-
323, 324, 302 and 34 of the IPC, a proceeding was
initiated against him by Opposite Party No.4 under
Annexure-8.
4.2. Learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner
contended that in the said proceeding and during
pendency of the criminal proceeding, Petitioner was found
guilty of the charges and was imposed with the
punishment of dismissal from service vide order
dtd.25.07.2016 under Annexure-11. Appeal and revision
filed by the Petitioner against such order of punishment
was also rejected vide order dtd.13.10.2016 under
Annexure-13 and order dtd. 15.02.2017 under Annexure-
14.
// 3 //
4.3. Learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner
contended that subsequent to imposition of punishment
of dismissal vide order under Annexure-11 so confirmed
vide order under Annexures-13 and 14, Petitioner in the
criminal proceeding was honourably acquitted vide
judgment dtd.30.09.2023 in Sessions Case No.798 of
2018 by the learned Sessions Judge, Thiruvanathpuram
Division under Annexure-16.
4.4. It is contended that since Petitioner in the criminal
proceeding was acquitted honoubly, Petitioner made a
detailed representation before Opposite Party No.5 under
Annexure-17, with a prayer to reinstate him in his
services as he has been honourably acquitted in the
criminal proceeding and the charges in both the
proceedings are similar. But on the ground that Petitioner
has already been punished with imposition of
punishment vide order under Annexure-11, so confirmed
vide order under Annexures-13 and 14, Petitioner's
application was rejected by a non-speaking order of
Opposite Party No.4 dtd.03.04.2024 under Annexure-18.
4.5. Learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner
contended that in view of the recent decision of the
Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Ram Lal so followed in
the case of Maharana Pratap Singh, Petitioner since
has been honourably acquitted in the criminal proceeding
and the charges in both the disciplinary proceeding and
// 4 //
criminal proceeding are similar, Petitioner is eligible and
entitled to get the benefit of reinstatement. But since
without proper appreciation Petitioner's claim, his claim
has been rejected by a non-speaking order by Opposite
Party No.4, the present Writ Petition has been filed inter
alia challenging the orders issued under Annexures-11,
13, 14 as well as 18.
4.6. It is accordingly contended that claim of the
Petitioner for his reinstatement because of his honourable
acquittal in the criminal proceeding, requires a fresh
consideration by Opposite Party No.4.
5. Since on the face of the order passed by this Court
on 10.09.2025, 23.09.2025 and 27.10.2025, no
instruction was provided to the learned DSGI, this Court
directed for personal appearance of Opposite Party No.4.
Pursuant to the said order and further order passed by
this Court on 25.11.2025, Opposite Party No.4 appeared
in person. Opposite Party No.4 fairly contended that he
will consider the claim of the Petitioner so made his
representation under Annexure-17 and pass a fresh order
taking into account the decision in the case of Ram Lal
and Maharana Pratap Singh.
6. Having heard learned counsel appearing for the
Parties and considering the submissions made and the
fact that both the criminal proceeding and disciplinary
proceeding were initiated on self- same charges and
// 5 //
Petitioner has been acquitted in the criminal proceeding
vide judgment dtd.30.09.2023 under Annexure-16, this
Court is of the view that the prayer of the Petitioner to get
the benefit of reinstatement is required to be considered
by following the decisions in the case of Ram Lal and
Maharana Pratap Singh.
6.1. Therefore, this Court while disposing the Writ
Petition directs Opposite Party No.4 who is present in
Court to pass a fresh order with regard to the
reinstatement of the Petitioner taking into account the
decisions as cited (supra) within a period of six (6) weeks
hence. Such an order be passed and be communicated to
the Petitioner within the aforesaid time period.
7. Accordingly, the Writ Petition stands disposed of.
Personal appearance of Opposite Party No.4 is
dispensed with for the present. Petitioner is permitted to
provide copy of this order along with copy of the judgment
in the case of Ram Lal and Maharana Pratap Singh
before Opposite Party No.4 for compliance.
(Biraja Prasanna Satapathy)
Judge
Subrat
Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACK
