CUTTACK, India, June 13 -- Orissa High Court issued the following Judgement on May 12:

1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual/Physical) Mode.

2. Heard learned counsel appearing for the Parties.

3. Pursuant to the order dtd.20.04.2026, learned Addl. Standing Counsel basing on the instruction so produced in Court contended that in the proceeding initiated vide Memorandum dtd.01.10.2012 in Gajapati District Proceeding No.14 of 2012, the proceeding is at the stage of issuance of 2nd show cause.

4. Learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner contended that in the proceeding in question enquiry report has already been submitted since 31.02.2014 under Annxure-3. Not only that in the meantime in the criminal proceeding so initiated on similar charge, Petitioner has already acquitted vide the judgment dtd.30.01.2024.

4.1. It is accordingly contended that since the charges is both the proceeding are same and on the face of the submission of the enquiry report since 31.02.2014, the proceeding is yet to be finalized, the proceeding in Gajapati District Proceeding No.14 of 2012 is required to be quashed.

4.2. In support of his submission, learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner relied 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) and the recent decision in the case of State of Odisha & Ors. Bansidhar Bariki (W.A. No.589 of 2025), the order of discharge so passed under Annexure10 by Opposite Party No.7 basing on the letter issued by Opposite Party No.6 is no more sustainable.

4.3. Hon'ble Apex Court in Para-13, 25 and 30 of the decision in the case of Ramlal 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)]

*Rest of the document can be viewed at: (https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/ecourtindiaHC/cases/display_pdf.php?filename=I1mmm2bl4r4EREhYK63Kvz6bGRzGLw1tegsN9ZUs8XzMqPLmKCj0Mx0zLRIRqPqP&caseno=WP(C)/11239/2026&cCode=1&cino=ODHC010271642026&state_code=11&appFlag=)

Disclaimer: Curated by HT Syndication.