CUTTACK, India, April 6 -- Orissa High Court issued the following order on March 5:

1. This matter is taken up through hybrid mode.

2. Heard Ms. B.K. Pattanaik, learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner and Mr. C.K. Pradhan, learned Addl. Govt. Advocate appearing for the Opp. Parties.

3. The present writ petition has been filed inter alia challenging order dtd.29.06.2024 so passed by Opp. Party No. 2 under Annexure-8 and the order of discharge issued vide order dt.14.09.2021 under Annexure-3.

4. Learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner contended that Petitioner was engaged as a Home Guard, where he joined in the year 2008. However, while so continuing and because of his implication in Olatpur P.S. Case No. 72 dtd.08.07.2021 for the offence under Sec. 341, 294, 506, 307/34 of IPC, Petitioner was discharged from his duty vide order dtd.14.09.2021 under Annexure-3.

4.1. It is contended that in the said criminal proceeding Petitioner when was acquitted vide Judgment dtd.02.02.2022 by the learned CJM-cum-Assistant Sessions Judge, Cuttack in S.T. No. 233 of 2021/ S.T. No. 50 of 2021 arising out of the aforesaid Olatpur P.S. Case No. 72 of 2021, Petitioner made a grievance before Opp. Party No. 3 with a prayer to reengage him as a Home Guard under Annexure-6. As the same was not considered, Petitioner moved Opp. Party No. 2 once again by making a representation on 19.04.2023 under Annexure-6 and thereafter approached this Court by filing W.P.(C) No. 11146 of 2024 challenging the in action in reengaging him as a Home Guard.

4.2. It is contended that this court vide order dtd.07.05.2024 under Annexure-7 placing reliance on the decision in the case of Ram Lal Vrs. State of Rajasthan and Ors. (Civil Appeal No.7935 of 2023), when directed Opp. Party No. 2 to take a decision on the Petitioner's claim for reengagement, the same was rejected vide impugned order dtd.29.06.2024 under Annexure-8 inter alia with the following finding:-

"It is well settled in law that acquittal in criminal cases do not automatically mean that a person is suitable to hold any public post. Besides, the standard of proof in a criminal case is beyond reasonable doubt, but in administrative decision making the standard of evidence is preponderance of probability. His past conduct is not suitable for consideration of his re-appointment."

4.3. Learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner contended that since because of his implication in the criminal proceeding, Petitioner was discharged without initiation of any proceeding and without issuing any show-cause, save and except the statutory notice in terms of the Odisha Home Guard Act, 1961, the ground on which the impugned order has been passed is not tenable in the eye of law.

*Rest of the document can be viewed at: (https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/ecourtindiaHC/cases/display_pdf.php?filename=bzPoyUlszYLCUcCpirIpqANOZZ6vqZ9lBlSdFdAozsk7MQ66j4uAQ%2B5AQRyYwW9K&caseno=WP(C)/18939/2024&cCode=1&cino=ODHC010555912024&state_code=11&appFlag=)

Disclaimer: Curated by HT Syndication.