Tankadhar Nag vs State Of Odisha & Ors. .... Opposite ...
2026 Latest Caselaw 2218 Ori

Orissa High Court

Tankadhar Nag vs State Of Odisha & Ors. .... Opposite ... on 11 March, 2026

Author: Biraja Prasanna Satapathy

Bench: Biraja Prasanna Satapathy

               IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

                                  W.P.(C) No.4424 of 2026

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

        Tankadhar Nag                                ....               Petitioner

                                                 -versus-

        State of Odisha & Ors.                       ....              Opposite Parties


       For Petitioner         :       Mr. L.K. Mohanty, Advocate


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


PRESENT:

   THE HON'BLE JUSTICE BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY

   ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Date of Hearing: 11.03.2026 and Date of Judgment: 11.03.2026
   ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

   Biraja Prasanna Satapathy, J.

1. This matter is taken up through hybrid mode.

2. Heard Mr. L.K. Mohanty, learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner

and Mr. S.P. Das, learned Addl. Standing Counsel appearing for the

Opp. Parties.

// 2 //

3. The present writ petition has been filed inter alia challenging order

dtd.25.10.2025 so issued by Opp. Party No. 1 under Annexure-12. Vide

the said order claim of the Petitioner for withdrawal/cancellation of the

order of punishment imposed against the Petitioner in the disciplinary

proceeding vide office order dtd.09.12.2021 under Annexure-7 was

rejected.

4. Learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner contended that

challenging the self-same order passed in the disciplinary proceeding on

09.12.2021 under Annexure-7, Petitioner was before this Court in

W.P.(C) No. 16258 of 2022. This Court taking into consideration the

fact that in the criminal proceeding so initiated on self-same charges,

Petitioner since has been acquitted, the disciplinary authority was

directed to take a fresh decision with regard to the punishment imposed

vide the impugned order dtd.09.12.2021 under Annexure-7. Such an

order was passed by this Court, placing reliance on 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).

// 3 //

4.1. 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."

4.2. Similarly, following the decision in the case of Ram Lal Hon'ble

Apex Court in Para-47 & 50 of the decision in the case of Maharana

// 4 //

Pratap Singh Vs. The State of Bihar and Others (Civil Appeal

No.5497 of 2025) 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."

4.3. However, it is contended that without proper appreciation of the

order passed by this Court in the earlier writ petition under Annexure-10

and the ratio decided in the case of Ram Lal so followed in Maharana

Pratap Singh so cited supra, Opp. Party No. 1 upheld the earlier order

passed on 09.12.2021 under Annexure-7, vide the impugned order under

Annexure-12.

// 5 //

4.4. Learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner contended that since on

self-same charges, Petitioner has been honorably acquitted in the

criminal proceeding, in view of the nature of order passed by this Court

under Annexure-10, the order of punishment should have been

cancelled/withdrawn. But instead of doing that Opp. Party No. 1 without

proper appreciation upheld the order vide the impugned order

dt.25.10.2025 under Annexure-12. It is accordingly contended that office

order dtd.09.12.2021 under Annexure-7 and the rejection vide order

dtd.25.10.2025 under Annexure-12 are not sustainable in the eye of law.

5. Mr. S.P. Das, learned Addl. Standing Counsel on the other hand while

supporting the impugned orders, contended that since factum of proof in

both the proceedings is different, even though Petitioner has been

acquitted in the criminal proceeding, it cannot be a ground to

cancel/withdraw the order of punishment imposed on the Petitioner in

the disciplinary proceeding vide order dt.09.12.2021 under Annexure-7.

It is also contended that since Petitioner was acquitted much after the

order of punishment imposed vide order dt.09.12.2021, the said

judgment is not applicable to the punishment already imposed in the

disciplinary proceeding.

// 6 //

6. Having heard learned counsel appearing for the Parties and

considering the submission made, this Court finds that Petitioner faced

the disciplinary proceeding as well as criminal proceeding on self-same

charges. In the disciplinary proceeding, Petitioner was imposed with the

punishment of stoppage of one increment with cumulative effect vide

order dtd.09.12.2021 under Annexure-7. However, it is not disputed that

in the criminal proceeding Petitioner was acquitted vide judgment

dtd.16.02.2024.

6.1. This Court taking into account the order of acquittal passed in the

criminal proceeding, while disposing the earlier writ petition in W.P.(C)

No. 16258 of 2022, wherein order of punishment dtd.09.12.2021 was

under challenge, directed Opp. Party No. 1 to take a fresh decision with

regard to the punishment so imposed. But Opp. Party No. 1 upheld the

order so passed on 09.12.2021, vide the impugned order dtd.25.10.2025

under Annexure-12.

6.2. Since on self-same issue Petitioner has been acquitted in the

criminal proceeding vide judgment dtd.16.02.2024, this Court is of the

view that the order of punishment so imposed prior to such acquittal to

the Petitioner, should have been recalled. Placing reliance on the

judgment in the case of Ram Lal so followed in Maharana Pratap

// 7 //

Singh so cited supra and the nature of direction issued in Judgment

dtd.31.07.2025 under Annexure-10, it is the view of this Court that the

impugned order could not have been passed by upholding order

dtd.09.12.2021.

6.3. In view of the aforesaid analysis, this Court is inclined to quash

order dtd.09.12.2021 so passed by Opp. Party No. 1 under Annexure-7,

further upheld vide order dtd.25.10.2025 under Annexure-12. While

quashing both the orders, this Court allows the writ petition.

7. The writ petition accordingly stands disposed of.

(BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY) JUDGE Orissa High Court, Cuttack Dated the 11th March, 2026/Sneha

Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack