[Cites 15, Cited by 0]
Orissa High Court
Bijay Kumar Nayak vs State Of Odisha & Ors. .... Opposite ... on 6 February, 2026
Author: Biraja Prasanna Satapathy
Bench: Biraja Prasanna Satapathy
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
W.P.(C) No. 18448 of 2022
In the matter of an application under Articles 226 & 227 of the
Constitution of India.
..................
Bijay Kumar Nayak .... Petitioner
-versus-
State of Odisha & Ors. .... Opposite Parties
For Petitioners : Mr. M.K. Balabantaray, Advocate
For Opp. Parties : Mr. C.K. Pradhan
Addl. Govt. Advocate
PRESENT:
THE HON'BLE JUSTICE BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Date of Hearing: 06.02.2026 & Date of Judgment: 06.02.2026
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Biraja Prasanna Satapathy, J.
1. This matter is taken up through hybrid mode.
2. On the oral prayer made by the learned counsel appearing for
the Petitioner, he is permitted to correct the description of Opp.
Party No. 3 properly in Court.
// 2 //
3. Heard Mr. M.K. Balabantaray, learned counsel appearing for
the Petitioner and Mr. C.K. Pradhan, learned Addl. Govt.
Advocate appearing for the Opp. Parties.
4. The present writ petition has been filed inter alia challenging
order dtd.02.05.2022 so passed by Opp. Party No. 3 under
Annexure-4. Vide the said order claim of the Petitioner for his
reinstatement by withdrawing the order of discharge passed by
Opp. Party No. 4 on 31.05.2012 under Annexure-1 series was
rejected.
5. Learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner contended that
pursuant to the advertisement issued by the State Selection Board,
Petitioner was duly selected and engaged as a Constable and was
appointed vide order dtd.17.04.2012 so available under Annexure-
1 series.
5.1. It is contended that while so continuing as a Constable in
Malkanagiri Police District, Petitioner along with 3 other
Constables because of their implication in Malkanagiri P.S. Case
No. 67/2012 for the offence under Sec. 294/341/323/324/307/506
& 34 of I.P.C., was removed from service w.e.f.25.05.2012.
5.2. It is contended that Petitioner along with other 3 accused
persons though were honorably acquitted in the criminal
proceeding, basing on which Petitioner was removed, vide
judgment dtd.04.11.2013 in Criminal Trial No. 22/2013 by the
learned CJM-cum-Asst. Sessions Judge, Malkanagiri, but
Petitioner was never reinstated in his services by withdrawing the
order of removal so passed on 31.05.2012.
// 3 //
5.3. It is contended that vide the said judgment, all the accused
persons including the present Petitioner was honorably acquitted
and stand taken by the learned trial court in Para 19 & 20 of the
judgment reads as follows:-
"19. From the discussions above made it is found that
here is substantial delay of lodging of F.I.R., delay not
explained, the scribe has not put his signature on the
F.I.R., there is no endorsement of the scribe that the
contents of F.I.R. was read over to the informan the
scribe it not examined, none of the 58 recruited
constables vere examined, the eye witness examined
turned hostile, the persons who lifted injured informant
namely Dharmendra Kanhar did not support the
prosecution case and Saroj Baraja not examined,
independent witness did not support the prosecution
case, the persons to v hom the informant narrated the
incident immediately it occurred dit not support the
prosecution case, the OPD register not seizec no
evidence on assault, no evidence to attempt to cause mi
der. contractions in the evidences of the informant,
omissions and exaggeration evidences of the informant,
injuries on medical repcri not corroborated, no person
from the nearby quarters examined the evidences of the
informant is not clear, cogent and trustworthy informant
not medically examined on police requisition and the no
corroboration from the materials witnesses. Thus the
prosecutior has failed to prove the ingredients of Sec.
323/324/307/34 IPC agains: the accused persons.
20. From the discussions made at supra I am of the
opinior that the prosecution has tailed to prove its case
against the act ised persons beyond all reasonable
doubts. Therefore I hold the acc ised persons not guilty
for the offerices u/s 294/323/324/341/307/506/34 IPC
and they are acquitted therefrom, under the provisio of
Sec.235(i) Cr.P.C. and are set at liberty forthwith. They
are discha ged from their bail bonds."
5.4. It is contended that since because of his implication in the
criminal case, Petitioner was discharged from his services vide
order dtd.31.05.2012 and he was honorably acquitted along with 3
other accused persons vide judgment dtd.04.11.2023, after such
// 4 //
acquittal, Petitioner along with the other 3 accused persons,
though made a joint representation before Opp. Party No. 3, with a
prayer to reinstate them, but the same was never considered.
Finding no alternative the present Petitioner approached the
Tribunal by filing O.A. No. 3282(C) of 2015.
5.5. The aforesaid Original Application after being transferred to
this Court, was disposed of vide order dtd.23.02.2022 under
Annexure-3 and with a direction on Opp. Party No. 3 to consider
the claim of the Petitioner for his reinstatement taking into account
the order of acquittal passed in the criminal proceeding.
5.6. It is contended that pursuant to such order passed by this
Court Petitioner though made a detailed representation, but
without proper appreciation of the same and the fact that Petitioner
along with 3 other accused persons were honorably acquitted in
the criminal proceeding, claim of the Petitioner was rejected vide
the impugned order dtd.02.05.2022 under Annexure-4.
5.7. Learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner contended that
since Petitioner has already been acquitted along with the 3 other
accused persons and he was removed only because of his
implication in the criminal proceeding, after his acquittal vide
judgment dtd.04.11.2013, 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 Vs. The State of Bihar and Others
(Civil Appeal No.5497 of 2025), Petitioner was required to be
reinstated in his service. But his claim after being kept pending for
// 5 //
a long 9 years, was rejected vide the impugned order under
Annexure-4.
5.8. 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 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."
5.9. 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
// 6 //
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."
6. Mr. C.K. Pradhan, learned Addl. Govt. Advocate on the other
hand made his submission basing on the stand taken in the counter
affidavit so filed by the Opp. Party No. 4. It is the main contention
of the learned State Counsel that, since Petitioner during his
training period, was implicated along with 3 other similarly
situated Constables giving rise to Malkanagiri P.S. Case No.
67/2012 and Petitioner was also arrested because of his
implication on 25.05.2012 and remained in custody till
15.06.2012, he was removed along with the other 3 accused
persons w.e.f.25.05.2012 vide order dtd.31.05.2012.
6.1. It is contended that since Petitioner during training period
along with other 3 accused persons were involved in a criminal
proceeding leading to their removal, in view of the provisions
contained under PMR 668, no illegality and irregularity can be
found with such action of the Opp. Party No. 4. It is also
// 7 //
contended that the appeal filed by the Petitioner on 01.02.2014
was also rejected vide order dtd.18.10.2012 of Opp. Party No. 2.
6.2. It is contended that even though Petitioner was acquitted in
the criminal proceeding, but since Petitioner was implicated in
such a criminal proceeding during the training period, he is not
eligible and entitled to get the benefit of reinstatement. Stand
taken in Para 6, 9 and 10 of the counter affidavit reads as follows:-
"6. That, in reply to the averments made in paragraph-
4 of the writ petition, it is humbly submitted that the
applicant was selected through open competitive
examination, after going through the medical fitness
and after verification of all original certificates.
Thereafter, he joined and was sent for service training
to MV-03 BSF campus, Malkangiri w.e.f.17.04.2012 on
the report of LNK/285 Sri Bhagaban Nayak, R.O,
Malkangiri PS Case 2012 under Section No. 67 of
294/341/323/324/307/506/34 IPC was registered and
as prima facia evidence was well established against
the petitioner, he was arrested on 25.05.212, and was
forwarded to the Court of SDJM, Malkangiri and he
was in Jail Custody up to 15.06.2012.
xxx xxx xxx
9. That in reply to the averments made in paragraph-7
of the writ petition it is humbly submitted that the
petitioner Ex-RC/479 Bijay Kumar Nayak along with
three others had filed an appeal petition jointly before
the 1.G. of Police, SWR, Koraput on 08.01.2012
(instead of 26.12.2013 as mentioned in representation)
for reinstatement of their services after acquittal by the
learned Trial Court in Criminal Trial No.22of
2013(CTNO.225 of 2013) of the learned Chief Judicial
Magistrate-cum Asst. Session Judge, Malkagiri on
04.11.2013. After careful consideration and going
through all relevant records the then I.G of Police,
SWR, Koraput disposed off the appeal petition on
01.02.2014 by upholding the order dated 18.10.2012 of
the D.I.G of Police, SWR, Koraput which has been
communicated to the applicant vide memo
No.3948/SWR, dated 18.10.2012.
// 8 //
10. That in reply to the averments made in paragraph-8
to 15 of the writ petition it is humbly submitted that the
Hon'ble Court dispose of the WPC(OAC)
NO.3282/2015 vide order No.2, dated 23.02.2022. The
petitioner submitted a fresh representation before the
DIG of Police, SWR, Koraput. As per the order of
Hon'ble High Court, Odisha, Cuttack dated 23.02.2022
vide W.P.(C) No. 3282/2015 and after careful analysis
of the connected file, documents, DIG of Police, SWR,
Koraput disposed of the appeal petition upholding the
order removal of petitioner from the Government
service by the then SP, Malkangiri. Further it is humbly
the effect of acquittal from a criminal case has no
bearing on a disciplinary action exercised by the
competent authority, as the two proceedings are
separate and exclusive of each other."
7. Having heard learned counsel appearing for the Parties and
considering the submissions made, this Court finds that Petitioner
by facing due recruitment process was selected and appointed as
Constable in the establishment of Opp. Party No. 4 vide order
dtd.17.04.2012. However, because of his implication in
Malkanagiri P.S. Case No. 67/2012 and because of his remaining
in custody Petitioner vide order dtd.31.05.2012 was removed
along with the other 3 accused persons w.e.f.25.05.2012.
7.1. As found, in the criminal proceeding present Petitioner along
with the 3 other accused persons were honorably acquitted vide
judgment dt.04.11.2013. On the face of such acquittal, claim made
by the Petitioner along with other 3 accused persons for their
reinstatement so made on 26.12.2013 was never considered. This
Court while disposing W.P.C.(OAC) No. 3282 of 2015, directed
for reconsideration of the Petitioner's claim taking into account
the order of acquittal passed in the criminal case. But, the same
was rejected vide the impugned order dtd.02.05.2022 under
Annexure-4 series of Opp. Party No. 2.
// 9 //
7.2. Placing reliance on the decisions in the case of Ram Lal as
well as Maharana Pratap Singh so cited (supra) and the fact that
the present Petitioner was honorably acquitted along with the other
3 accused persons vide judgment dtd.04.11.2013 in Criminal Trial
No. 22/2013, this Court is of the view that the ground on which
claim of the Petitioner for his reinstatement has been rejected is
not sustainable in the eye of law.
7.3. Therefore, while quashing order dtd.02.05.2022 so passed by
Opp. party No. 3 under Annexure-4 series, this Court directs Opp.
Party No. 4 to reinstate the Petitioner in his services with passing
of a fresh order within a period of four (4) weeks. On such
reinstatement of the Petitioner, Petitioner be allowed to undergo
the training and after completion of the training, appropriate action
be taken.
8. With the aforesaid observation and direction, the writ petition
accordingly stands disposed of.
(BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY)
Judge
Orissa High Court, Cuttack
Dated the 6th February, 2026/Sneha
Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack
