// 10 //
1. The present Writ Appeal arises from the judgment
dated 20.11.2024 passed by the learned Single
Judge in W.P.(C) No.2265 of 2023, whereby the
learned Single Judge was pleased to set aside the
order of dismissal dated 05.07.2022 passed by the
Superintendent of Police, Kandhamal and the
appellate order dated 13.12.2022 passed by the
Inspector General of Police, Southern Range,
Berhampur, and further directed reinstatement of the
writ petitioner with all consequential service and
financial benefits.
Xxx xxx xxx
3. The facts of this case, in brief, are that the
respondent was serving as a Constable in the Odisha
Police establishment. On the basis of an allegation
arising out of Kandhamal Sadar P.S. Case No.68
dated 29.05.2015, registered under Section 20(b)(ii)(C)
read with Section 29 of the NDPS Act, he came under
the scanner and was exposed to both criminal
prosecution and departmental proceedings.
Xxx xxx xxx
7. Notwithstanding acquittal in the criminal case, the
disciplinary authority proceeded with the
departmental inquiry and ultimately passed order
dated 05.07.2022 dismissing the respondent from
service. The disciplinary authority concluded that the
respondent had committed grave misconduct
unbecoming of police personnel.
Xxx xxx xxx
8. The respondent preferred departmental appeal in
the nature of representation before the Inspector
General of Police, Southern Range, Berhampur. The
appellate authority, by order dated 13.12.2022,
affirmed the dismissal order without granting relief.
Xxx xxx xxx
10. The learned Single Judge, upon examining the
rival submissions advanced by the parties and upon
careful consideration of the materials available on
record, placed reliance upon the principles laid down
in several judgments. Upon such consideration, the
learned Single Judge came to hold that in the facts
and circumstances of the present case, the acquittal
// 11 //
recorded by the criminal court was not merely
technical in nature but was based on failure of the
prosecution to establish the involvement of the
respondent in the alleged offence. The learned Single
Judge further held that the disciplinary authorities
had failed to demonstrate the existence of any
independent material or evidence which could justify
the imposition of punishment despite the acquittal
recorded in the criminal trial. Accordingly, the learned
Single Judge set aside the order of dismissal as well
as the appellate order affirming the same and
directed reinstatement of the respondent with all
consequential service and financial benefits.
Xxx xxx xxx
21. Accordingly, the Writ Appeal being devoid of merit
stands dismissed.
5.12. Placing reliance on the aforesaid decisions,
learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner contended
that since the proceeding in question was initiated with
similar charges and in the Criminal Proceeding,
Petitioner has been acquitted vide judgment
dt.20.07.2015, which was never assailed by the State,
the order of removal passed vide order dt.16.10.2018
under Annexure-19 of Opp. party No.5 after remand of
the matter as per dt.29.01.2015 under Annexure-15 is
not only illegal but also not sustainable in the eye of
law. Consequentially, orders passed under Annexures-
21,23 & 24 by the Appellate and revisional authority as
// 12 //
well as by the State-Opp. Party No.1 are not sustainable
in the eye of law.
5.13. It is contended that in view of the decision of the
Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Ram Lal so followed in
the case of Maharana Pratap Singh so cited supra and
the decision of this Court in the case of Bansidhar
Bariki, the order of dismissal passed by Opp. Party No.5
in the departmental proceeding vide order dt.16.10.2018
under Annexure-19 and confirmed by the appellate and
revisional authority under Annexure-21 & 23 and by the
State-Opp. Party No.1 under Annexure-24, require
interference of this Court and liable to be quashed.
5.14. It is further contended that with quashing of the
impugned orders, Petitioner be allowed re-instatement
with service continuity and release of all service and
financial benefits as due and admissible.
6. Mr. P.K. Panda, learned Addl. Standing Counsel
on the other hand while supporting the impugned
orders, contended that since Petitioner was involved in
a Criminal Proceeding in Baripada P.S. Case
// 13 //
No.196(20) of 2011, the proceeding in question was
initiated against him vide Charge Memo dt.29.02.2012
under Annexure-6 with similar charges. In the said
Proceeding, Petitioner when was imposed with the
punishment of removal vide order dt.21.07.2014 under
Annexure-10, Petitioner preferred an appeal before the
Appellate authority-Opp. Party No.3 under Annexure-
11.
6.1. The Appellate authority vide order dt.29.01.2015
under Annexure-12, when set aside the order of
punishment and remitted the matter to the stage of
issuance of 1st show-cause, Petitioner was re-instated
vide order dt.05.02.2015 under Annexure-13.
However, in terms of the order passed by the Appellate
authority on remand, Petitioner was issued with the 2nd
show-cause on 04.10.2016 under Annexure-17 and
after due consideration of the reply made by the
Petitioner under Annexure-18, the Disciplinary
Authority-Opp. Party No.5 once again passed the order
of dismissal vide order dt.16.10.2018 under Annexure-
19.
// 14 //
6.2. It is contended that order passed by the Disciplinary
authority-Opp. Party No.5 after remand vide order
dt.16.10.2018, though was challenged by the Petitioner
before the appellate authority and thereafter before the
Revisional Authority, but both the authorities vide order
dt.18.03.2019 under Annexure-21 and 27.09.2019 under
Annexure-23, rejected the Appeal and the Revision so
filed by the Petitioner. Not only that, Memorial filed by
the Petitioner before the Government -Opp. Party No.1
was also rejected vide order dt.21.06.2021 under
Annexure-24.
6.3. It is contended that since after remand of the matter,
Petitioner was given due opportunity of hearing and there
is no such allegation that there was violation of any
statutory provision or violation of the Principle of natural
justice, no illegality or irregularity can be found with the
impugned order of punishment passed under Annexure-
19, confirmed vide order under Annexures-21,23 & 24.
6.4. It is also contended that factum of proof being
different in both the proceedings and Petitioner since was
held guilty of the charges by the Inquiry Officer, even if
// 15 //
Petitioner was acquitted in the Criminal Proceeding, that
cannot be taken as a ground to interfere with the order of
punishment passed under Annexure-19, so upheld vide
order passed under Annexures-21, 23 & 24. It is
accordingly contended that no interference is called for so
far as the punishment is concerned.
6.5. However, basing on the instruction, it is fairly
contended that the Inquiry Officer who submitted the
report under Annexure-8, was examined as a witness
(P.W.3) when one Suresh Kumar Behera was the Inquiry
Officer. Instruction provided by the Department reads as
follows:
The examination of Company Commander 'A'
Company i.e. Shri Akshay Kumar Nayak, Asst.
Commandant as a witness (PW-3) was
recorded on 15.05.2012 by Shri Suresh Kumar
Behera, Asst. Commandant the then Enquiry
Officer prior to transfer. Company Commander
A Company was examined primarily on the
appellant's deployment details at the time of
the incident, but the trial revolves around the
appellant's direct involvement in the criminal
offence and arrest on 21.07.2011 at 2.40 PM
U/S 376/417/506 IPC in the enquiry. The PW-
3 testimony though recorded fail to conclusively
link deployment records to culpability, as he
neither corroborate motive nor eyewitness
accounts of the crime After transfer of Shri
Behera to 1 IR Battalion Koraput. Shri Nayak
was appointed as successor Enquiry Officer.
This is a standard procedural requirement to
// 16 //
ensure continuity of records and does not
render him the Enquiry Officer for the entire
enquiry.
The successor Enquiry Officer. Shri Akshay
Kumar Nayak, Asst Commandant,
independently conducted the further enquiry in
to the matter. He examined 02 out of 07
Prosecution Witnesses (PWs) cited in the Memo
of Evidence as Shri Behera the then Enquiry
Officer has already examined 05 PWs Shri
Nayak examined PWs-4&7 i.e IIC Town P.S.
Baripada and I.O Shri R.K Muduli Sub-
Inspector of Police, Baripada Town PS. After
completing the said examination, the Successor
Enquiry Officer submitted his findings/final
report to the competent authority on
15.04.2014, strictly in accordance with Rule
without any procedural irregularity.
Apart from this, it is to intimate that, the
appellant was permitted to allow defence
assistance namely Shri Bhagbat Chandra
Nayak, Ex-Sub-Inspector of Police during the
course of enquiry as per his representation
That, the proceeding enquiry was conducted
clearly demonstrates the separation of roles
and compliance with principles of natural
justice.
In view of the above submissions, it is most
respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble High Court
may be pleased to take the above clarification
on record.
7. Having heard learned counsel appearing for the
parties and considering the submission made, this
Court finds that Petitioner while continuing as a "A"Coy
in the establishment of Opp. Party No.5, the proceeding
in question was initiated vide charge memo
dt.29.02.2012 under Annexure-6, because of his
// 17 //
implication in Baripada P.S. Case No.196 of 2011,
corresponding to G.R. Case No.797 of 2011 in the file of
learned S.D.J.M., Baripada.
7.1. In the said proceeding, one Suresh Kumar Behera
was initially appointed as the Inquiry Officer to conduct
the inquiry. During continuance of the said Suresh
Kumar Behera as the Inquiry Officer, Sri Akshay
Kumar Nayak, Asst. Commandant was examined as
P.W.3 on 15.05.2012.
7.2. It is however found that subsequently the
aforesaid Akshay Kumar Nayak was appointed as the
Inquiry Officer and he submitted the inquiry report
under Annexure-8 by holding the Petitioner guilty of
the charges. Even though Petitioner while submitting
the reply to the 2nd show-cause under Annexure-9,
took such a stand and raised his objection with regard
to appointment of Sri Akshay Kumar Nayak as an
Inquiry Officer, on the face of his examination as a
witness by the prosecution, but the same was never
dealt with and Petitioner was imposed with the
// 18 //
punishment of dismissal vide order dt.21.07.2014
under Annexure-10 of Opp. Party No.5.
7.3. The order passed on 21.07.2014 under Annexure-10
was interfered with by the Appellate authority-Opp. Party
No.4 vide order dt.29.01.2015 under Annexure-12 and in
terms of the said order, Petitioner was re-instated vide
order dt.05.02.2015 under Annexure-13. However,
subsequently, after remand of the matter and prior to
disposal of the proceeding, Petitioner though was
acquitted in the Criminal Proceeding vide judgment
dt.20.07.2015, but Petitioner was again imposed with the
self-same punishment of dismissal vide order
dt.16.10.2018 under Annexure-19. The Appeal as well as
the Revision filed against such order was also rejected vide
order under Annexures-21 and 23 and Memorial filed
before the Government-Opp. Party No.1 was also rejected
vide order under Annexure-24.
7.4. Since it is not disputed that both the Proceedings
were initiated on self-same charges and Petitioner has
been acquitted in the Criminal Proceeding vide
// 19 //
judgment dt.20.07.2015 in Criminal Appeal No.44 of
2014, placing reliance on the decisions of the Apex
Court in the case of Ram Lal, Maharana Pratap
Singh and the decision of this Court in the case of
Bansidhar Bariki, so cited supra, it is the view of this
Court that the order of punishment of dismissal is not
sustainable in the eye of law.
7.5. This Court is also of the view that the Inquiry
Officer who was earlier examined as a witness by the
prosecution as P.W.3, should not have been appointed
as the Inquiry Officer to conduct the inquiry. The
report submitted by the Inquiry Officer by holding the
Petitioner guilty of the charges under Annexure-8, as
per the considered view of this Court should not have
been relied on by the disciplinary authority-Opp. Party
No.5.
7.6. In view of the aforesaid analysis, this Court is
inclined to quash the impugned order of punishment
passed by Opp. Party No.5 on dt.16.10.2018 under
Annexure-19, confirmed by the Appellate authority-Opp.
// 20 //
Party No.3 vide order dt.14.03.2019 under Annexure-
21, by the Revisional authority-Opp.party No.2 vide
order dt.27.09.2019 under Anenxure-23 and by the
Government-Opp. Party No.1 vide order dt.21.06.2021
under Annexure-24.
7.7. While quashing the orders under Annexures-
19,21,23 & 24, this Court directs Opp. Party No.5 to re-
instate the Petitioner in his services with passing of an
appropriate order within a period of 2(two) weeks from
the date of receipt of this order. The break period of
service starting from initial order of dismissal so passed
on 21.07.2014 till re-instatement be regularised in
accordance with law on notional basis. Petitioner
however is not held eligible to get any financial benefit,
save and except regularisation of the period on notional
basis, however with service continuity.
8. The Writ Petition accordingly stands disposed of.
(Biraja Prasanna Satapathy)
Judge
Signed by: SANGITA PATRA Orissa High Court, Cuttack
Reason: authentication of order
Dated the 16th April, 2026/Sangita
Location: high court of orissa, cuttack
Date: 22-Apr-2026 18:49:35
