[Cites 1, Cited by 0]
Orissa High Court
Ramesh Chandra Panda vs State Of Odisha And on 27 January, 2026
Author: Biraja Prasanna Satapathy
Bench: Biraja Prasanna Satapathy
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
W.P.(C) No.24714 of 2021
Ramesh Chandra Panda .... Petitioner
Mr. B. Routray, Sr. Advocate
with Mr. S.D. Routray, Adv.
-versus-
State of Odisha and
Others
.... Opp. Parties
Mr. A. Tripathy, AGA
CORAM:
JUSTICE BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY
ORDER
27.01.2026
Order No
07. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid
Arrangement (Virtual/Physical) Mode.
2. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
3. The present Writ Petition has been filed 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 18.12.2020 under
Annexure- 7 passed by the Opposite Party
No. 1 shall not be quashed.
// 2 //
iv) If the opposite parties do not show cause or
show insufficient cause issue a writ in the
nature of certiorari or any other appropriate
writ/writs, order/orders, direction/directions
by quashing the impugned order dated
18.12.2020 under Annexure- 7 passed by
the Opposite Party No. 1.
v) Issue a writ in the nature of mandamus or
any other writ/writs direction/directions
directing the Opposite _ parties, particularly
the Opposite Party No. 1 to regularize the
service of the petitioner by treating the
present petitioner as Work-charged Assistant
Executive Engineer and to give all service
and financial benefit from the date when the
post was upgraded as has been done in case
of applicants in OA No. 1036 (C ) of 2016
and OA No. 1089 (C ) of 2016 within a
reasonable time to be stipulated by this
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."
4. It is contended that claim of the petitioner to get
the benefit of regularization was rejected vide order
dated 18.12.2020 under Annexure-7, only on the
ground that in the Vigilance Proceeding initiated
against the petitioner in Koraput Vigilance P.S. Case
No.5 dated 10.02.2012, charge-sheet has been
submitted with cognizance taken against the
petitioner on 10.03.2017.
4.1. It is contended that petitioner in the meantime
was acquitted in the said Vigilance Proceeding vide
judgment dated 18.01.2022, so passed by the learned
Special Judge (Vigilance), Jaipur in T.R. Case No.17 of
2015 under Annexure-13. It is contended that since
// 3 //
the ground on which claim of the petitioner was
rejected vide the impugned order, is no more
sustainable, because of his acquittal in the Vigilance
Proceeding, claim of the petitioner is required to be
adjudicated once again
4.2. It is also contended that claim of the petitioner is
covered by the orders passed by this Court in the case
of Tapan Kumar Mohanty Vs. State of Odisha and
Others (W.P.(C) No.13553 of 2020 disposed of on
31.10.2023), Saroj Kumar Nayak Vs. State of
Odisha and Others (OA No.1036(C) of 2016 disposed
of on 16.05.2018) & Satyashri Mohapatra Vs. State
of Odisha and Others (W.P.(C) No.24000 of 2019
disposed of on 07.12.2022).
4.3. It is accordingly contended that the matter be
remitted to Opp. Party No.1 to take a fresh decision
on the petitioner's claim to get the benefit of
regularization, from the date he was otherwise entitled
to get the same.
5. Learned Addl. Govt. Advocate though does not
dispute that petitioner in the meantime has been
acquitted in the Vigilance Proceeding vide judgment
dated 18.01.2022 under Annexure-13, but it is
contended that since petitioner in the meantime has
already retired on attaining the age of superannuation
on 30.06.2020, no direction be issued to re-consider
// 4 //
the petitioner's claim to get the benefit of
regularisation.
6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and
considering the submission made, this Court finds
that pursuant to the earlier order passed by this
Court in W.P.(C) No.18438 of 2019 on 30.09.2019,
claim of the petitioner to get the benefit of
regularization was rejected on the ground that in the
Vigilance Proceeding cognizance has been taken
against the petitioner on 10.03.2017. It is found that
in the said Vigilance Proceeding, petitioner was
acquitted vide judgment dated 18.01.2022 so
available under Annexure-13.
6.1. Taking into account the order of acquittal passed
in the aforesaid Vigilance Proceeding and the
decisions relied on by the learned Senior Counsel for
the petitioner, this Court is of the view that the
ground on which petitioner's claim was rejected, is no
more sustainable in the eye of law.
6.2. Therefore, while quashing the impugned order
dated 18.12.2020 so issued under Annexure-7, this
Court remits the matter to Opp. Party No.1 to take a
fresh decision on the claim of the petitioner taking
into account the order of acquittal passed in the
Vigilance Proceeding and the decisions so cited
(supra).
// 5 //
6.3. Petitioner is permitted to provide a copy of this
order along with citations so relied on, before Opp.
Party No.1 for compliance of the order. This Court
directs Opp. Party No.1 to pass a fresh order within a
period of 2 (two) months from the date of receipt of
this order with due communication.
7. The Writ Petition stands disposed of.
(Biraja Prasanna Satapathy)
Judge
Basudev
Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack
Date: 30-Jan-2026 10:57:48
