Orissa High Court
Basanta Kumar Lenka vs State Of Odisha & Others .... Opposite ... on 13 October, 2025
Author: R.K. Pattanaik
Bench: R.K. Pattanaik
AFR IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
W.P.(C) No.18222 of 2022
Basanta Kumar Lenka .... Petitioner
Ms. S.Sunandini, Advocate
-Versus-
State of Odisha & others .... Opposite Parties
Mr. Prabir Kumar Ray, AGA
CORAM:
JUSTICE R.K. PATTANAIK
DATE OF HEARING: 17.07.2025
DATE OF JUDGMENT:13.10.2025
1.
Instant writ petition is filed by the petitioner challenging
the departmental proceeding and the impugned orders as at
Annexures-6 to 9 on the grounds stated.
2. Briefly stated, the petitioner in view of the order of
punishment has been given three black marks and the same
has been confirmed in departmental appeal and revision and
for the self-same charges, he has been acquitted by a criminal
court for having not being found guilty of the charges
levelled by a judgment as at Annexure-1. It is pleaded that
the petitioner was working as a Lance Naik in OSAP 4 th
Battalion, Rourkela and due to a previous rivalry, he was
falsely implicated in Rourkela P.S. Case No.44 dated 22 nd
April, 2011 for an offence under Section 395 IPC and
therein, he was arrested and released on bail corresponding to
SC No.11/38 of 2012-15 by then pending in the court of
learned Additional C.J.M-cum-Assistant Sessions Judge,
Rourkela. It is pleaded that the criminal case ended in
acquittal as per Annexure-1 and on the same charge and for
the fact that the petitioner was in custody for more than 48
hours, opposite party No.4 initiated the departmental action
as per the chargesheet i.e. Annexure-2 but the allegations
therein were denied and while stating so, he filed the show
cause i.e. Annexure-3 dated 30th June, 2012 claiming
innocence and exoneration from the alleged charges levelled
against him, however, the Deputy Commandant, OSAP, 4 th
Battalion, Rourkela upon completion of enquiry placed the
report dated 16th May, 2012 with a conclusion that he has
been found guilty, consequent upon which, 2nd show cause
notice was called from him and it was responded as per
Annexure-5 and at last, the final order with punishment of
three black marks was imposed and the period of suspension
with effect from 23rd July, 2011 to 16th January, 2017 with a
total number of 2400 days was treated as such and it was
duly communicated with a Memo dated 5th December, 2017
i.e. Annexure-6 and upon receiving the same, an appeal was
preferred as per Annexure-7 but the learned Appellate
Authority dismissed it in a mechanical manner by order dated
5th May, 2018 i.e. Annexure-8, to which, a revision was
carried before opposite party No.2 who after hearing the
parties and considering the evidence on record dismissed it
vide Annexure-9.
3. The following are the grounds challenging the impugned
orders, such as, (i) the authority concerned did not consider
the show cause properly and the circumstances under which
the petitioner was arrested but at last acquitted by a criminal
court and for the fact that he was falsely implicated in the
case and was arrested and detained beyond 48 hours, hence,
the proceeding was initiated against him; and (ii) once the
petitioner has been acquitted and he is let off the charges, on
the self-same allegation, any such decision of imposition of
penalty by a departmental proceeding would amount to
double jeopardy and the punishment of black mark is
certainly to affect his service career.
4. The counter affidavits have been filed by opposite party
Nos.2, 3 & 4. As per the counter, the petitioner was alleged
of having committed robbery of cash, gold chain etc. during
the night of 21st July, 2011 and in course of investigation, the
stolen articles were recovered from him for which the
criminal case was registered and in that connection, upon
interrogation, the petitioner admitted his involvement and
hence, was arrested on 23rd July, 2011 and forwarded to the
court immediately thereafter and basing upon such
intimation, he was placed under suspension vide Unit
Battalion Order No.1342 dated 23rd July, 2011 and then, the
departmental enquiry was commenced and upon receiving
the report, the Disciplinary Authority awarded him major
punishment, such as, three black marks for the gross
misconduct treating the suspension period as such. It is
pleaded that the appeal and revision filed by the petitioner
have been considered and dismissed by the authorities
concerned. It is also pleaded that the petitioner being in a
disciplined service remained unauthorizedly absent with
effect from 23rd July, 2011 and for his involvement in a
criminal case, him having dented the image of the
Department, the disciplinary enquiry was initiated leading to
the imposition of penalty and it was upheld by the authorities
as per Annexures-F/4 and G/4. Referring to the clarification
issued by the State Government in GA Department dated 3rd
May, 2021 at Annexure-H/4, it is further pleaded that
acquittal of delinquent employee in a criminal case does not
ipso facto put a stop to any disciplinary proceeding initiated
against him, inasmuch as, any such acquittal is
inconsequential as he may be found guilty in a departmental
action, wherein, a lesser standard of proof is necessary and
hence, awarding the major penalty with the suspension
treated as such is proportionate to the charges levelled and
hence, the plea advanced in that regard is devoid of merit.
5. Heard Ms. Sunandani, learned counsel for the petitioner
and Mr. Ray, learned AGA for the State.
6. In course of hearing, the following decisions, such as,
Ram Lal Vrs. State of Rajasthan and others (2024) 1 SCC
175 and Budhadev Dandia Vrs. State of Odisha and
others in WPC(OAC) No.4832 of 2011 decided on 1st
November, 2022 have been referred to and relied upon by
Ms. Sunandini, learned counsel for the petitioner with the
submission that the petitioner was absent from duty since he
was arrested and forwarded to the court and remanded
thereafter and in so far as the criminal case is concerned, for
the self-same charge, it ended in acquittal and hence,
therefore, the Disciplinary Authority should not have
imposed any such penalty.
7. In Ram Lal (supra), the Apex Court reiterated the law
that a Writ Court's power to review a decision of a
Disciplinary Authority is limited and only to examine
legitimacy of the decision making process and to determine
whether material evidence has been considered in reaching at
the conclusion. At the same time, it has been held therein that
mere acquittal in criminal proceedings does not confirm any
right to the employee to claim benefit but when the charges
in departmental enquiry and before the criminal court are
identical, evidence, witnesses and circumstances are also
same and where in exercise of power of judicial review, it is
revealed that acquittal in criminal case was after full
consideration of evidence and that the prosecution miserably
failed to prove the charge, the order of Disciplinary Authority
may be interfered with and furthermore, when the findings
are found to be unjust, unfair and oppressive.
8. The legal position is that a Court's power to review
decision of a Disciplinary Authority is very limited and as it
has been held in Ram Lal (supra), the scope of enquiry is
only to examine whether the decision making process is
legitimate. The decision in SBI Vrs. A.G.D. Reddy (2023)
14 SCC 391 is referred to by the Apex Court and is quoted
with approval in the case (supra). Similarly, another decision
in United Bank of India Vrs. Biswanath Bhattacharjee
(2022) 13 SCC 329 has been referred to therein reiterating
the view that judicial review is only to consider whether the
findings of the disciplinary authority are in ignorance of the
material evidence and if it is so, the Courts are not powerless
to interfere. In the same breath, the Apex Court in Deputy
Inspector General of Police and another Vrs. S.
Samuthiram (2013) 1 SCC 598 held that an order of
acquittal does not confirm, the employee a right to claim any
benefit including reinstatement. In sum and substance, the
view of the Apex Court Ram Lal (supra) is that if the Court
in judicial review concludes that the acquittal was after full
consideration of the prosecution evidence, it is entitled to
exercise discretion and grant relief. A reference has been
made to the decision in G.M. Tank Vrs. State of Gujarat
and others (2006) 5 SCC 446 by the Apex Court in the case
(supra) besides State Bank of Hyderabad and another Vrs.
P. Kata Rao (2008) 15 SCC 657 and S. Samuthiram
(supra) to held that the findings of the disciplinary
proceeding, if found to be unjust and unfair, the power of
judicial review is to be exercised..
9. A copy of the judgment in S.T. No.11/38 of 2012-15 is at
Annexure-1 and the same is gone through and examined in
juxtaposition to the findings of the inquiry at Annexure-4. In
the criminal case, the material witness, namely, informant
examined as P.W.2 though admitted the alleged incident to
have been taken place on 21st July, 2011 during night time
when he was on his way in a motorcycle but could not
identify the petitioner during trial. In fact, some miscreants
allegedly committed the dacoity and during the incident, the
informant was threatened by them alleging him to be
responsible for immoral trafficking and they forcibly
removed his money purse and other items and even assaulted
him by means of fist blows and slaps. The informant, namely,
P.W.2 failed to identify the accused persons in the dock and
claimed to have no acquaintance with them and considering
such evidence, the Court held that there remains a shadow of
doubt about the commission of the offence by any of them.
The other witness examined as P.W.1 supported the case of
the prosecution but considering the evidence of P.W.2,
namely, the victim, the learned Trial Court reached at a
conclusion that the prosecution failed to prove the charge
against all including the petitioner and accordingly, held them
not guilty for the alleged offence and passed the order of
acquittal under Section 235(1) Cr.P.C. On a reading of the
judgment in the criminal case, the Court finds that on the
basis of evidence, particularly, received from the informant,
the learned Trial Court was inclined to hold the accused
persons not guilty. The examination of other witnesses during
trial was dispensed with. Under such circumstances, with an
order of acquittal in favour of the petitioner, whether, it
would be proper to uphold the action and penalty.
10. As per the inquiry report i.e.Annexure-4 with the findings
of the Inquiry Officer, namely, Deputy Commandant, OSAP,
4th Battalion, Rourkela, it is made to understand that apart
from seizure articles, a mobile handset looted during the
alleged incident was recovered and seized from the petitioner.
The I.O. of the case and other witnesses have been examined
during inquiry and all such relevant documents stood marked
as exhibits. No plausible explanation was offered by the
petitioner during the enquiry with any evidence in rebuttal, as
to how the mobile handset was recovered from him. Though,
the informant failed to identify the accused persons during
trial but such identification was successful during the TI
parade. According to the Court, the recovery and seizure of
looted mobile handset stares at the petitioner with no
explanation offered. Regard being had to the above facts, the
Court is not inclined to exonerate the petitioner, despite such
an order of acquittal with the nature of evidence received
during trial. That apart, it cannot be said to be a case of
honourable acquittal but on account of benefit of doubt that
the petitioner has been held not guilty.
11. Hence, it is ordered.
12. In the result, the writ petition stands dismissed.
(R.K. Pattanaik)
Signed by: THAKURDAS TUDU TUDU
