Dr. Debashis Mohapatra vs State Of Odisha & Anr. .... Opposite ...
2026 Latest Caselaw 1439 Ori

Orissa High Court

Dr. Debashis Mohapatra vs State Of Odisha & Anr. .... Opposite ... on 17 February, 2026

Author: Biraja Prasanna Satapathy

Bench: Biraja Prasanna Satapathy

               IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

                                  W.P.(C) No.2356 of 2026

      In the matter of an application under Articles 226 & 227 of the
  Constitution of India.
                            ..................

        Dr. Debashis Mohapatra                       ....               Petitioner

                                                 -versus-

        State of Odisha & Anr.                       ....              Opposite Parties


       For Petitioner         :       Mr. N. Biswal, Advocate


       For Opp. Parties :             Mr. P.P. Behera, ASC

PRESENT:

   THE HON'BLE JUSTICE BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY

   ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Date of Hearing: 17.02.2026 and Date of Judgment: 17.02.2026
   ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

   Biraja Prasanna Satapathy, J.

1. This matter is taken up through hybrid mode.

2. Pursuant to order dtd.27.01.2026, learned Addl. Standing Counsel

produced the instruction provided by the Department vide letter

dtd.17.02.2026 in Court. The same be kept in record.

// 2 //

3. Basing on the instruction so provided, learned Addl. Standing Counsel

contended that charges in both the vigilance proceeding and departmental

proceeding though are identical and similar, but there is no bar to proceed

in the departmental proceeding.

4. Heard Mr. N. Biswal, learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner and

Mr. P.P. Behera, learned Addl. Standing Counsel appearing for the Opp.

Parties.

5. The present writ petition has been filed inter alia with the following

prayer:-

"It is, therefore prayed that this Hon'ble Court may graciously be pleased to admit this writ application, issue notice to the Opp. Parties, call for the relevant records and after hearing the counsel for the parties may pass the following orders/directions;

i) To quash the impugn order of punishment dated-

20.11.2025 passed by the disciplinary authority i.e. Opposite party No-1 under Annexure-13 on the ground that the petitioner has been acquitted in the alleged Vigilance proceeding initiated on the self- same charges vide Judgment dated-20.04.2024 passed by the Learned Special Judge (Vigilance), Balasore in T.R Case No-02/2017 under Annexure-10 as per the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme court in the case of "Ram Lal -Vrs- State of Rajasthan and Ors." reported in AIR 2024 SC 637 as well as in the case of "Maharana Pratap Singh Vs. The State of Bihar and Others" reported in 2025(4) SLR 915 (SC).

ii) To declare the entire disciplinary proceedings initiated vide memorandum dated-27.08.2016 under Annexure-3 as vitiated.

// 3 //

iii) To quash the impugn order of suspension dated- 28.04.2016 under Annexure-1.

iv) To direct the Opposite parties to extend all the service and consequential benefits to the petitioner within the time framed by this Hon'ble Court.

And/or pass such other further order/orders as this Hon'ble Court deems just, equitable and proper in the facts and circumstances of the present case;

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

6. It is contended that even though the departmental proceeding was

initiated because of the implication of the Petitioner in the vigilance

proceeding and in the said vigilance proceeding, Petitioner was acquitted

vide judgment dtd.20.04.2024 under Annexure-10, but factum of such

acquittal even though was raised by the Petitioner while submitting his

reply to the 2nd show-cause under Annexure-12, but the disciplinary

authority-Opp. Party No. 1 without considering that aspect and the

judgment governing the field, imposed the punishment while disposing

the proceeding vide impugned order dtd.20.11.2025 under Annexure-13.

6.1. It is contended that in view of the decision rendered by Apex Court in

the case of Ram Lal Vs. State of Rajasthan & 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) and since it

is admitted that the charges are same in both the proceedings, Petitioner

// 4 //

could not have been imposed with the punishment vide the impugned

order.

6.2. Hon'ble Apex Court in Para-13, 25 and 30 of the decision in the case

of Ram Lal 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."

6.3. Hon'ble Apex Court in Para-47 & 50 of the decision in the case of

Maharana Pratap Singh has held as follows:-

// 5 //

"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."

6.4. Reliance was also placed to another judgment of this Court in the case

of Ajay Kumar Jena Vs. State of Odisha & Anr. (W.P.(C) No. 20382 of

2022). This Court in Para 6.1 to 6.3 of the said Judgment has held as

follows:-

"6.1. It is not disputed by either of the Parties that in the departmental proceeding duly participated by filing written

// 6 //

statement of defence as well as in the enquiry. However, it is found that prior to disposal of the disciplinary proceeding, Petitioner was acquitted in the vigilance proceeding vide judgment dtd.22.09.2015. Even though such factum of acquittal was produced before the disciplinary authority-Opp. Party No. 2, but Opp. Party No. 2 while disposing the disciplinary proceeding so initiated in Ganjam District Proceeding No. 30 of 2012 vide order dtd.30.06.2019 under Annexure-5, imposed the punishment of two black marks on the Petitioner. The said order passed by the disciplinary authority- Opp. Party No. 2 has been confirmed by Opp. Party No. 1 while rejecting the appeal vide order dtd.30.04.2021 under Annexure-7.

6.2. Since it is not disputed that the charges in both the proceedings are same and Petitioner has been acquitted in the vigilance proceeding, placing reliance on the decision in the case of Ram Lal so followed in Maharana Pratap Singh and by this Court in the case of Hemanta Kumar Bhoi as cited supra, it is the view of this Court that because of his acquittal in the vigilance proceeding, Petitioner could not have been imposed with the punishment in the disciplinary proceeding.

6.3. Therefore, this Court is inclined to quash order dtd.30.06.2019 so passed by Opp. Party No. 2 under Annexure-5 and further order passed by Opp. Party No. 1 on 30.10.2021 under Annexure-7. While quashing both the orders, this Court allows the writ petition."

6.5. It is accordingly contended that since the charges are same in both the

proceedings because of the acquittal in the vigilance proceeding,

// 7 //

Petitioner could not have imposed with the punishment in the

departmental proceeding vide the impugned order.

7. Mr. P.P. Behera, learned Addl. Standing Counsel also does not dispute

the contention raised by the learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner

regarding similarity of the charges in both the proceedings. However, it is

contended that on the face of the acquittal in the vigilance proceeding,

there is no bar to proceed in the departmental proceeding with imposition

of the punishment vide order dt.20.11.2025 under Annexur-13.

8. Having heard learned counsel appearing for the Parties, considering the

submission made and the fact that charges in both the proceedings are

similar and Petitioner has been acquitted in the vigilance proceeding vide

judgment under Annexure-10 and such a plea was also raised by the

Petitioner in his reply to the 2nd show-cause under Annexure-12, which

has not at all been dealt with by the disciplinary authority-Opp. Party No.

1, this Court in view of such irregularity on the part of Opp. Party No. 1,

is inclined to quash order dtd.20.11.2025 so issued by Opp. Party No. 1

under Annexure-13. While quashing the said order, this Court remits the

matter to Opp. Party No. 1 to take a fresh decision with regard to

sustainability of the punishment to be imposed on the Petitioner, taking

// 8 //

into account the decision in the case of Ram Lal so followed in

Maharana Pratap Singh as well as Ajay Kumar Jena as cited supra.

8.1. This Court directs Opp. Party No. 1 to take a fresh decision within a

period of two (2) months from the date of receipt of this order. Petitioner

is permitted to provide a copy of this order along with the decisions in the

case of Ram Lal so followed in Maharana Pratap Singh as well as Ajay

Kumar Jena as cited supra before Opp. Party No. 1 for compliance.

9. The writ petition accordingly stands disposed of.

(BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY) JUDGE Orissa High Court, Cuttack Dated the 17th February, 2026/Sneha

Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack