[Cites 0, Cited by 0]
Orissa High Court
Dillip Kumar Sahoo vs Union Of India & Ors. ..... Opposite ... on 12 March, 2026
Author: Biraja Prasanna Satapathy
Bench: Biraja Prasanna Satapathy
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
WP(C) No.29777 of 2023
Dillip Kumar Sahoo ..... Petitioner
Mr. K.P. Mishra, Sr. Advocate
-versus-
Union of India & Ors. ..... Opposite Parties
Ms. S. Rajaguru, SPC
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY
ORDER
12.03.2026
Order No.08
1. This matter is taken up through hybrid mode.
2. Heard Mr. K.P. Mishra, learned Sr. Counsel appearing for the
Petitioner along with Ms. S. Barik, learned counsel and Ms.
Rayaguru, learned Sr. Panel Counsel appearing for the Opp. Parties.
3. The present writ petition has been filed inter alia with the
following prayer:-
"Under the aforesaid facts and circumstances of
the case, it is therefore, prayed that this Hon'ble Court
may graciously be pleased to:
(i) admit and allow this Writ Application;
(ii) quash the impugned Order(s) of removal from service
by the Opp. Party RPF Authorities as at Annexure-5, 6 and
7 by concurrently holding the same as illegal, improper and
unjust and thereby direct/ order the Opp. Party RPF
Authorities to reinstate the Petitioner in service with all
service and consequential benefits forthwith in the interest
of justice;
(iii) pass such other order(s) / issue direction(s) as may be
deemed fit and proper in the bona fide interest of justice;
And for this act of kindness, the petitioner as in
duty bound shall ever pray."
4. It is contended that while continuing as an ASI of Police (RPF)
under the Opp. Parties, Petitioner along with two (2) others
employees in the rank of Constable, basing on the preliminary
enquiry report submitted under Annexure-2, were terminated from
their services vide order dtd.02.12.2022 under Annexure-4. Against
such order of termination appeal filed by the Petitioner was rejected
vide order dtd.28.03.2023 under Annexure-6 and the revision so
filed was also rejected vide order dtd.02.08.2023 under Annexure-7.
4.1. Learned Sr. Counsel appearing for the Petitioner vehemently
contended that, since Petitioner at the relevant point of time was
working under the Railway as a regular ASI of Police, without
initiation of the proceeding in accordance with law, basing on the
enquiry conducted with the preliminary enquiry report furnished
under Annexure-2, Petitioner could not have been removed from his
services vide the impugned order dtd.02.12.2022 under Annexure-4.
4.2. It is also contended that challenging such order of removal
when the other two (2) erring Constables moved the appellate
authority, the self-same appellate authority directed for their
reinstatement in services vide order dtd.28.03.2023 (copy of order
dt.28.03.2023 so produced in Court be kept in record). However,
claim of the Petitioner was not only rejected by the appellate
authority vide order dt.28.03.2023 under Annexure-6 but also by the
revisional authority vide order under Annexure-7.
4.3. It is contended that since basing on the self-same enquiry report
under Annexure-2, Petitioner along with other two (2) erring
Constables were removed from their services vide a common order
passed on 02.12.2022 under Annexure-4, while allowing
reinstatement to those two (2) Constables by the appellate authority
vide order dtd.28.03.2023, appeal filed by the Petitioner could not
have been rejected on the same date vide order under Annexure-6,
further confirmed by the revisional authority vide order
dtd.02.08.2023 under Annexure-7.
4.4. It is also contended that since at no point of time any
proceeding was instituted in accordance with law and under the
relevant provisions of the Act and Rules governing the service
condition of the Petitioner, no order of removal could have been
passed basing on a preliminary enquiry report and that too basing on
some private complaints made against the Petitioner and the other
two (2) Constables.
4.5. Making all these submissions learned Sr. Counsel appearing for
the Petitioner contended that, order of removal passed against the
Petitioner vide order under Annexure-4, confirmed by the appellate
authority vide order under Annexure-6 and by the revisional
authority under Annexure-7, are not sustainable in the eye of law
and Petitioner is eligible and entitled to get the benefit of
reinstatement as has been allowed in favour of the two (2)
Constables by the appellate authority vide order dtd.28.03.2023, so
produced in Court today.
4.6. It is also contended that while allowing both the appeals in
respect of those two (2) Constables, the appellate authority though
directed the concerned Senior Divisional Security Commissioner,
Sambalpur to conduct a fresh enquiry as per RPF Rules and to take
necessary disciplinary action as deem fit and proper, but no such
enquiry has been conducted as yet with initiation of any disciplinary
proceeding.
5. Ms. S. Rayaguru, learned Sr. Panel Counsel appearing for the
Opp. Parties on the other hand made her submission basing on the
stand taken in the counter affidavit so filed. At the outset learned Sr.
Panel Counsel does not dispute the benefit of reinstatement issued in
favour of the two (2) erring Constables by the appellate authority
vide order dtd.28.03.2023 so produced by the learned Sr. Counsel
appearing for the Petitioner in Court. However, it is contended that
since Petitioner was the group leader and he was in the higher rank,
it was expected from him not to involve in such type of offence. It is
accordingly contended that Petitioner cannot be taken as similarly
situated as like the other two (2) Constables who have been
reinstated, pursuant to the order passed by the self-same appellate
authority on 28.03.2023.
6. Having heard learned counsel appearing for the Parties and
considering the submission made, this Court finds that Petitioner
while continuing as ASI of Police in RPF, he along with two (2)
Constables, basing on the preliminary enquiry report available under
Annexure-2, were removed from their services, without initiation of
any disciplinary proceeding in accordance with law vide order
dtd.02.12.2022 under Annxure-4. Appeal filed by the Petitioner
before the appellate authority was rejected vide order
dtd.28.03.2023 under Annexure-6. But it is not disputed that similar
appeal filed by the 2 (two) Constables, were allowed by the self-
same appellate authority vide another order issued on 28.03.2023.
Not only that Petitioner's revision was also rejected by the
revisional authority vide order dtd.02.08.2023 under Annexure-7.
6.1. Since no disciplinary proceeding was ever initiated against the
Petitioner in accordance with law, it is the first view of this Court
that without initiation of any such proceeding in accordance with
law basing on any preliminary enquiry report, Petitioner being a
regular employee at the relevant point of time, which is not
disputed, could not have been removed from his services. Not only
that similar order of removal passed in respect of the two (2)
Constables when was set aside with a direction to reinstate them by
the appellate authority vide order dt.28.03.2023, Petitioner's appeal
could not have been rejected by the self-same appellate authority
vide order dtd.28.03.2023 under Annexure-6, so confirmed by the
revisional authority vide his order under Annexure-8.
6.2. In view of the aforesaid analysis, this Court is of the view that
the order of removal passed against the Petitioner vide order
dtd.02.12.2022 under Annexure-4 so confirmed by the appellate
authority vide order dtd.28.03.2023 under Annexure-6 and by the
revisional authority vide order dtd.02.08.2023 under Annexure-7,
are not sustainable in the eye of law. While quashing all those orders
so far as it relates to the Petitioner, this Court directs Opp. Party No.
2 to reinstate the Petitioner in his services within a period of two (2)
weeks from the date of receipt of this order. The break period of
service be regularized in accordance with law, but on notional basis.
7. The writ petition accordingly stands disposed of.
Signed by: SNEHANJALI PARIDA (BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY)
Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Judge
Date: 19-Mar-2026 11:50:30Sneha
