[Cites 0, Cited by 0]
Orissa High Court
Kartik Paramanik vs State Of Odisha And Others ..... ... on 2 February, 2026
Author: Aditya Kumar Mohapatra
Bench: Aditya Kumar Mohapatra
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
WP(C) No.2743 of 2026
Kartik Paramanik ..... Petitioner
Represented by Adv. -
M/s. Amit Prasad Bose,
S. Swain, D. SAhoo,
R.P. Chatarji
-versus-
State of Odisha and others ..... Opposite Parties
Represented by Adv. -
Mr. Sarbeswar Behera,
AGA
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADITYA KUMAR MOHAPATRA
ORDER
02.02.2026
Order No.
01. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement
(Virtual /Physical Mode).
2. Heard learned counsel for the Petitioner as well as the
learned counsel for the State-Opposite Parties. Perused the writ
application as well as the documents annexed thereto.
3. By filing the present writ application, the Petitioner has
prayed for the following relief:-
"The petitioner, therefore, prays that your
Lordships may be graciously pleased to admit this writ
application, issue notice to the opp. parties, after
hearing the parties, issued appropriate writ/writ(s) in
the nature of Certiorari/ Mandamus quash the order
dated 04.10.2017 under Annexure -1 and direct the
opp. parties to consider representation of the
petitioner under Annexure-5 and to provide all
consequential service benefits regularising service of
the petitioner from the date of dismiss from service;
And pass any other order(s) direction(s) as this
Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper.
4. Learned counsel for the Petitioner, at the outset, contended
that initially the Petitioner was appointed on 14.03.1986 as a
Teacher in a primary school. Pursuant to such appointment, the
Petitioner joined in duty on 25.03.1986. While discharging his
duty as a Teacher, the Petitioner got entangled in a criminal case
and finally he was convicted vide judgment dated 24.03.2012
passed in Sessions Trial Case No.260/08(A) of 2010-2011 by the
learned Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No.1,
Phulbani under Annexure Annexure-3 to the writ petition. Upon
conviction of the Petitioner in the above noted criminal case, a
departmental proceeding was initiated against the present
Petitioner and he has been imposed with the punishment of
removal from service. The order imposing punishment dated
04.10.2017 has been filed at Annexure-1 to the writ petition. On
perusal of the order passed by the Disciplinary Authority at
Annexure-1, it appears that the Petitioner was found guilty and he
has been dismissed from service. However, such dismissal has
been made subject to the final outcome in Criminal Appeal
No.283 of 2012.
5. The sole grievance of the Petitioner in the present writ
petition is that although in the meantime the criminal appeal has
been allowed and the Petitioner has been acquitted of all charges,
however, the Petitioner has not been taken back in service.
Learned counsel for the Petitioner further contended that although
the Petitioner has approached the Opposite Party No.3 by filing a
representation on 17.04.2018, however, no decision has been
taken on such representation of the Petitioner.
6. On perusal of the record, it appears that the criminal appeal,
which was preferred by the Petitioner, registered as CRLA
No.283 of 2012 was heard and disposed of by a Division Bench of
this Court vide judgment dated 21.05.2024 whereby the Petitioner
has been acquitted of all charges. However, the Petitioner has not
approached the Opposite Parties after disposal of the criminal
appeal where he has been acquitted.
7. On a careful scrutiny of the record, this Court observes that
the disciplinary proceeding, which was initiated against the
present Petitioner, has ended in dismissal of the Petitioner from
service. Thus, the Disciplinary Authority has become functus
officio by passing the final order.
8. Learned counsel for the State, on the other hand, contended
that in the event the Petitioner has been acquitted by this Court in
Criminal Appeal No.283 of 2012 vide judgment dated 21.05.2024
as has been stated by the Petitioner and pleaded in his writ
petition, the Petitioner should have approached the Appellate
Authority challenging the order passed by the Disciplinary
Authority. Since the Petitioner has not approached the Appellate
Authority, the present writ petition is premature and devoid of
merit and, accordingly, the same should be dismissed.
9. Having heard the learned counsels appearing for the
respective parties and on a careful examination of the background
facts as well as the materials on record, further taking note of the
orders at Annexures-1 and 5, this Court grants liberty to the
Petitioner to prefer an appeal against the order of dismissal dated
04.10.2017 along with an application for condonation of delay.
Taking into consideration the fact that the criminal appeal was
disposed of on 21.05.2024, learned Appellate Authority shall
consider the delay in preferring an appeal liberally and pass
necessary orders on the application of the Petitioner for
condonation of delay. Further, in the event the appeal is
entertained by the Appellate Authority, the Appellate Authority
shall take into consideration the judgment dated 21.05.2024 at
Annxure-5 to the writ petition and pass necessary orders in
accordance with law. Considering the fact that the Petitioner has
already retired from service in the meantime, the Appellate
Authority shall do well to consider and dispose of the appeal as
expeditiously as possible in the event such appeal is filed by the
Petitioner in the manner as has been directed hereinabove.
10. With the aforesaid observation and direction, the writ
petition stands disposed of.
(Aditya Kumar Mohapatra)
Judge
Debasis
