Ranjit Kumar Sahoo vs State Of Odisha & Others .... Opp. ... on 21 April, 2026

Author: Biraja Prasanna Satapathy

Bench: Biraja Prasanna Satapathy

  IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

               W.P.(C) No.10004 of 2026

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


Ranjit Kumar Sahoo                     ....                   Petitioner

                                 -versus-


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




      For Petitioner              : Mr. S. Sekhar, Advocate

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


PRESENT:


THE HONBLE JUSTICE BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY

 Date of Hearing: 21.04.2026 and Date of Judgment: 21.04.2026
 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 Biraja Prasanna Satapathy, J.

1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual/Physical) Mode.

2. Heard learned counsel appearing for the Parties.

// 2 //

3. Even though the matter has been listed for fresh admission, but on the consent of the learned counsel appearing for the Parties, the matter was heard finally and disposed of by the present order.

4. Petitioner has filed the present Writ Petition inter alia with the following prayer:-

"It is therefore, most humbly prayed that this Hon'ble Court be graciously pleased to:

i) Admit the writ application.

ii) Call for the record.

iii) Issue Rule NISI calling upon the Opposite Parties to show cause as to why the impugned order dated 08.12.2025 under Annexure: 10and the rejection of grievance representation order dated 20.02.2026under Annexure 13 shall not be quashed.

iv) If the Opp. Parties fail to show cause or show insufficient cause, issue a writ in the nature of certiorari or any other appropriate writ/writs, order/orders, thereby quashing the impugned order dated 08.12.2025 under Annexure: 10 and the rejection representation order dated 20.02.2026 under Annexure 13.

v) Issue a writ in the nature of mandamus or any other writ/writs, order / orders, direction/directions directing the opposite parties, to reinstate the petitioner in service as Constable by allowing him to discharge his duty as before and extend all the consequential service and financial benefits as due and admissible to the petitioner within a stipulated time to be fixed by the Hon'ble court.

vi) And/or pass any other order/orders, direction/directions as this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper for the ends of justice.

And for the said act of kindness, the petitioner as in duty bound shall ever pray."

5. It is contended that while continuing as a Constable, Petitioner because of his involvement in Itamati P.S. Case

// 3 //

No.162 dtd.14.12.2018, was discharged from Government service vide order dtd.08.12.2025 under Annexure-10 in terms of the provisions contained under PMR-668(a).

5.1. It is contended that such an order of discharge was passed by Opposite Party No.5 basing on the letter issued by Opposite Party No.6 on 25.11.2025.

5.2. It is further contended that even though there is no provision for filing of an appeal against an order of discharge passed in terms of the provisions contained under PMR 668-(a), but Petitioner with abundant caution when moved the appellate authority-Opposite Party No.4, the same was also rejected by a non-speaking order vide order dtd.20.02.2026 under Annexure-13.

5.3. Learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner contended that even though Petitioner was discharged from his services because of his implication in the criminal proceeding, but by the time Petitioner was so discharged, Petitioner had already been acquitted from the charges in criminal proceeding vide judgment dtd.31.10.2025 under Annexure-11. It is accordingly contended that the order of discharge passed under Annexure-10 requires interference of this Court.

5.4. It is also contended that in view of 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

// 4 //

Vs. The State of Bihar and Others (Civil Appeal No.5497 of 2025) and the recent decision in the case of State of Odisha & Ors. Bansidhar Bariki (W.A. No.589 of 2025), the order of discharge so passed under Annexure-10 by Opposite Party No.7 basing on the letter issued by Opposite Party No.6 is no more sustainable.

5.5. 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 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."

// 5 //

5.6. 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.

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."

5.7. This Court in Para-20 of the decision in the case of Banshidhar Bariki has held as follows:-

"20. To substantiate the aforementioned charge, the inquiry officer, as has been stated above has examined the same set of witnesses, whose version has been clearly discarded by a judicial finding by the Court of Addl. Sessions Judge. The important aspect of this matter is the plea of alibi taken by the respondent, which has been established by him by cogent evidence and believed by the trial court. If the plea of alibi is believed by the trial Court in the judgment dated 26.11.2018, which has attained the finality, the entire genesis of the case is washed away on facts. Therefore, it could be safely inferred that departmental proceedings and their conclusion are based on "no evidence". The learned Single Judge has rightly relied upon numerous judgments to un-justify the departmental action taken against the respondent. It is no gain saying that the judgment relied upon by the learned Single Judge

// 6 //

is apt in the fact scenario of the present case. The eventual conclusion drawn by the learned Single Judge, setting aside the departmental action against the respondent cannot be faulted with on law as well as facts. Therefore, this is clearly not a case for interference by this Court".

6. Mr. S. Das, learned Addl. Standing Counsel for the State on the other hand contended that since Petitioner has been discharged because of his implication in the criminal case and if as contended he has been acquitted vide judgment dtd.31.10.2025, Petitioner should have approached Opposite Party No.6 for re-consideration of his claim to get the benefit of reinstatement instead of filing of an appeal before Opposite Party No.4 and now challenging both the orders in the present Writ Petition.

6.1. It is however contended that since Petitioner because of his implication in the criminal case was discharged from service, no illegality or irregularity can be found with the impugned order.

7. To the submissions made by the learned Addl. Standing Counsel, learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner contended that even though Petitioner was involved in the criminal proceeding so initiated in the year 2018, but he was only discharged vide order dtd.08.12.2025, basing on the letter issued by Opposite Party No.6 on 25.11.2025 after it came to the knowledge of the authority that Petitioner has been acquitted in the criminal proceeding vide judgment dtd.31.10.2025.

// 7 //

8. Having heard learned counsel appearing for the Parties and considering the submissions made, this Court finds that Petitioner while continuing as a Constable though he was implicated in Itamati P.S. Case No.162 dtd.14.12.2018, but no action was taken against him till the impugned order of discharge was passed by Opposite Party No.7 vide order dtd.08.12.2025 under Annexure-10, basing on the letter issued by Opposite Party No.6 on 25.11.2025. But by the time such order of discharge was passed, Petitioner had already been acquitted in the criminal proceeding vide judgment dtd.31.10.2025.

8.1. Since by the time the order of discharge was passed on 08.12.2025, Petitioner had already been acquitted in the criminal proceeding, no order of discharge could have been passed, on the ground that Petitioner is involved in the criminal proceeding. Not only that in view of the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Ram Lal and other decisions as cited (supra), Petitioner after his acquittal could not have been discharged on the ground that he is involved in the criminal proceeding.

8.2. Therefore, it is the view of this Court that the ground on which Petitioner has been discharged from service vide order dtd.08.12.2025 under Annexure-10, further confirmed by the appellate authority vide order dtd.20.02.2026 under Annexure-13 are not sustainable in the eye of law. This Court accordingly is inclined to quash both the orders issued under Annexures-10 and

// 8 //

13. While quashing the orders under Annexures-10 & 13, this Court directs Opposite Party Nos.6 & 7 to reinstate the Petitioner with passing of an order within a period of two (2) weeks from the date of receipt of this order.

9. Accordingly, the Writ Petition stands disposed of.

(Biraja Prasanna Satapathy) Judge

Orissa High Court, Cuttack Dated the 21st April, 2026/Subrat

Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACK