SANTOSH KUMAR SAMAL vs STATE OF ODISHA
- Court
- Odisha High Court
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
W.P.(C) No.16514 of 2024
CNR No.ODHC010486702024
In the matter of an application under Articles 226 and 227
of the Constitution of India.
………………
Santosh Kumar Samal …. Petitioner
-versus-
State of Odisha and Others …. Opposite Parties
For Petitioner : Mr. K.K. Swain, Advocate
For Opp. Parties : Mr. C.K. Pradhan, AGA
Mr. B.P. Tripathy, Sr. Advocate
with Mr. N. Barik, Adv. for O.P. No.3
PRESENT:
THE HONBLE JUSTICE BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Date of Hearing:04.11.2026 and Date of Judgment:04.11.2026
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Biraja Prasanna Satapathy, J .
1. Heard Mr. K.K. Swain, learned counsel for the
petitioner, Mr. C.K. Pradhan, learned Addl. Govt.
Advocate for the State and Mr. B.P. Tripathy, learned
// 2 //
Senior Counsel along with Mr. N. Barik, learned
counsel for the Opp. Party No.3.
2. The present Writ Petition has been filed inter
alia with the following prayer:-
“Under the above circumstances, it is humbly prayed
that the writ petition may be allowed;
(A) a writ of mandamus or an appropriate writ may
be issued quashing the impugned order No.13202
dated 18.05.2024 passed by the Commissioner-cum-
Secretary to Government in Health and Family
Welfare Department under Annexure:9 and the order
No.496 dated13.02.2024 passed by the Chief District
Medical and Public Health Officer, Dhenkanal under
Annexure.7 as well as the order of termination dated
05.04.2023 under Annexure:4 and necessary
direction may be made to the opposite parties to
reengage / reinstate the petitioner in his former post
i.e. Medical Officer, AYUSH with all consequential
service and financial benefits, within a time to be
stipulated by this Hon'ble Court;
(B) And any other order/orders or direction/
directions may be issued so as to give complete relief
to the petitioner.”
3 . It is contended that petitioner by facing due
recruitment process was appointed as a Medical
Officer, AYUSH under RBSK and posted to Parjanga
CHC vide order dated 25.10.2014, so issued by Opp.
Party No.4 under Annexure-1. Petitioner in terms of
the said order and with due execution of the
Page 2 of 14
// 3 //
agreement with Opp. Party No.4 continued as a
Medical Officer, AYUSH on contractual basis.
3. 1. It is however contended that while so
continuing with due renewal of the agreement all
through, petitioner because of his remaining in
custody for more than 48 hours for his involvement
in 2(a) C.C. Case No.25 of 2023 in the file of learned
JMFC, Bhuban, was terminated vide order dated
05.04.2023 of Opp. Party No.4 under Annexure-4.
3. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended
that even though petitioner was terminated from his
services because of his remaining in custody for
more than 48 hours in terms of Clause-9 of the
agreement but petitioner was acquitted in the
criminal proceeding vide judgment dated 18.05.2023
under Annexure-5.
3. 3. It is contended that even though petitioner was
acquitted in the Criminal Proceeding vide judgment
dated 18.05.2023 just after one and half month of
Page 3 of 14
// 4 //
his termination but petitioner was never re-instated
in his service. Accordingly, petitioner challenging
order dated 05.04.2023, approached this Court by
filing W.P.(C) No.11814 of 2023. This Court vide
order dated 14.09.2023 under Annexure-6, when
directed Opp. Party No.2 to take a fresh decision on
the petitioner’s claim for his re-engagement, the
same was rejected by Opp. Party No.4, vide his order
dated 13.02.2024 under Annexure-7.
3. 4. It is contended that petitioner being aggrieved
by such action of Opp. Party No.4 in rejecting his
prayer for re-engagement, moved Opp. Party No.1 by
making a grievance on 11.03.2024 under Annexure-
8. As the same was not considered, petitioner again
approached this Court by filing W.P.(C) No.4290 of
2024. Even though this Court directed Opp. Party
No.1 to take a decision on the grievance made by the
petitioner under Annexure-8, but Opp. Party No.1
also rejected the same vide order dated 18.05.2024
under Annexure-9.
Page 4 of 14
// 5 //
3. 5. While assailing the orders issued under
Annexures-4, 7 and 9, learned counsel for the
petitioner contended that since the very basis of
termination of the petitioner is because of his
remaining in custody for more than 48 hours in
terms of Clause-9 of the agreement and petitioner
was acquitted just after one and half month of his
termination, petitioner should have been re-instated
in his service.
3. 6. However, on the face of the request made and
the direction issued by this Court in W.P.(C)
No.11814 of 2023, Opp. Party No.4 rejected the
prayer for re-engagement vide order dated
13.02.2024 under Annexure-7. Not only that Opp.
Party No.1 also being directed to take a decision on
the petitioner’s claim to get the benefit of re-
engagement, rejected the same vide order dated
18.05.2024 under Annexure-9.
Page 5 of 14
// 6 //
3. 7. It is contended that since petitioner was
terminated because of his involvement and remaining
in custody for more than 48 hours, in 2(a) C.C. Case
No.25 of 2023, on his acquittal vide judgment under
Annexure-5 petitioner became eligible and entitled to
get the benefit of re-engagement. In support of his
submission, reliance was placed to the decisions of
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 of this Court in the
case of State of Odisha and Others Vs. Bashidhar
Bariki (W.A. NO.589 of 2025). 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
Page 6 of 14
// 7 //
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)]
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.
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.”
3.8. Hon’ble Apex Court in Para-47 & 50 of the
decision in the case of Maharana Pratap Singh 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 .
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
Page 7 of 14
// 8 //
formalities. The Court's duty is to focus on the substance
of the judgment, rather than the terminology used.”
3.9. This Court in Para-20 of the decision in the case
of Banshidhar Bariki has held as follows:-
“20. To substantiate the aforementioned charge, the
inquiry officer, as has been stated above has examined
the same set of witnesses, whose version has been
clearly discarded by a judicial finding by the Court of
Addl. Sessions Judge. The important aspect of this
matter is the plea of alibi taken by the respondent, which
has been established by him by cogent evidence and
believed by the
trial court. If the plea of alibi is believed by the trial Court
in the judgment dated 26.11.2018, which has attained
the finality, the entire genesis of the case is washed
away on facts. Therefore, it could be safely inferred that
departmental proceedings and their conclusion are based
on “no evidence”. The learned Single Judge has rightly
relied upon numerous judgments to un-justify the
departmental action taken against the respondent. It is
no gain saying that the judgment relied upon by the
learned Single Judge is apt in the fact scenario of the
present case. The eventual conclusion drawn by the
learned Single Judge, setting aside the departmental
action against the respondent cannot be faulted with on
law as well as facts. Therefore, this is clearly not a case
for interference by this Court”.
4. Learned Addl. Govt. Advocate on the other hand
while supporting the impugned order of termination
issued in favour of the petitioner under Annexure-4
so confirmed vide order under Annexures-7 and 9,
contended that since petitioner on being appointed
vide order dated 25.10.2014 under Annexure-1, was
allowed to continue in terms of the agreement
executed in between the petitioner and Opp. Party
Page 8 of 14
// 9 //
No.4 and as per Clause-9 of the said agreement,
petitioner remained in custody for more than 48
hours, petitioner was terminated vide order dated
05.04.2023 of Opp. Party No.4. Clause-9 of the
agreement reads as follows:-
“9. xxxxx Further, the contractual services of the
Second Party from the OSH&FW Society shall be
terminated at any point of time if the Second Party is
detained in custody whether on a criminal charge or
otherwise for a period exceeding forty-eight(48) hours,
with effect from the date of such detention by an order
of the concerned appointing authority.”
4. 1. It is contended that even though petitioner was
acquitted in the Criminal Proceeding vide judgment
dated 18.05.2023 under Annexure-5, but pursuant
to the order passed by this Court on different
occasion, claim of the petitioner to get the benefit of
re-engagement was initially rejected by Opp. Party
No.4 vide order dated 13.02.2024 under Annexure-7
and by Opp. Party No.1 vide order dated 18.05.2024
under Annexure-9.
4. 2. It is accordingly contended that since petitioner
admittedly was terminated in terms of Clause-9 of
Page 9 of 14
// 10 //
the agreement for his remaining in custody for more
than 48 hours, even though he was acquitted in the
Criminal Proceeding vide judgment dated 18.05.2023
under Annexure-5, that if so facto does not give a
right in favour of the petitioner to get the benefit of
re-engagement.
4. 3. It is accordingly contended that no illegality or
irregularity can be found with the impugned order of
termination passed under Annexure-4, further
confirmed by Opp. Party No.4 vide his order under
Annexure-7 and by Opp. Party No.1 vide his order
under Annexure-9.
5. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for Opp.
Party No.3 on the other hand contended that since
petitioner was appointed under the aegis of National
Health Mission and as per the terms of the
agreement, a contractual employee is liable for
termination on his remaining in custody for more
than 48 hours, no illegality or irregularity can be
Page 10 of 14
// 11 //
found with the impugned order of termination
passed by Opp. Party No.4, as petitioner admittedly
remained in custody for more than 48 hours,
because of his implication in 2(a) C.C. Case No.25 of
2023.
5. 1. It is also contended that since after his
termination, there is no renewal of agreement,
petitioner is not eligible to get the benefit of re-
engagement.
6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties
and considering the submission made, it is found
that petitioner was appointed as a contractual
Medical Officer, AYUSH and posted to Parjanga CHC
vide order dated 25.10.2024 under Annexure-1 so
issued by Opp. Party No.4. It is found that while so
continuing with due renewal of the agreement,
petitioner because of his involvement and remaining
in custody for more than 48 hours in 2(a) C.C. Case
No.25 of 2023, was terminated vide order dated
Page 11 of 14
// 12 //
05.04.2023 of Opp. Party No.4. Petitioner was so
terminated in terms of the provision contained under
Clause-9 of the agreement.
6. 1. However, it is found just within one and half
month of his termination, petitioner was acquitted by
the Criminal Court vide judgment dated 18.05.2023
under Annexure-5. Even though petitioner was
acquitted just after one and half month of his
termination, but when he was not re-engaged, he
approached this Court by filing W.P.(C) No.11814 of
2023.
6. 2. This Court vide its judgment dated 14.09.2023
under Annexure-6, when directed Opp. Party No.4 to
take a decision, taking into account the fact that
petitioner has been acquitted in the criminal
proceeding, but the same was rejected by Opp. Party
No.4 vide his order dated 13.02.2024 under
Annexure-7.
Page 12 of 14
// 13 //
6. 3. Petitioner challenging such action of Opp. Party
No.4, moved the Govt.-O.P. No.1 by making a
grievance on 11.03.2024 under Annexure-8 and
when the same was not considered, petitioner again
approached this Court by filing W.P.(C) No.4290 of
2024. This Court when directed for its consideration,
Opp. Party No.1 rejected the same vide order dated
18.05.2024 under Annexure-9.
6. 4. It is the view of this Court that since petitioner
was terminated because of his remaining in custody
for more than 48 hours in the Criminal Case and he
was acquitted just within one and half month of his
termination he should have been re-engaged with
due renewal of the agreement. Placing reliance on
the decisions of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of
Ram Lal so followed in the case of Maharana
Pratap Singh and the recent decision of this Court
in the case of Banshidhar Bariki so cited (supra),
this Court is of the view that petitioner is eligible and
entitled to get the benefit of re-engagement.
Page 13 of 14
// 14 //
6. 5. Accordingly, this Court while quashing the
orders issued under Annexures-4, 7 and 9, directs
Opp. Party Nos.1 and 4 to allow the petitioner to
continue in terms of the order issued under
Annexure-1 with due renewal of the agreement, if
any. This Court directs Opp. Party Nos.1 and 4 to
complete the entire exercise within a period of 2(two)
months from the date of receipt of this order.
7. The Writ Petition stands disposed of
accordingly.
(Biraja Prasanna Satapathy)
Judge
Orissa High Court, Cuttack
th
Dated the 4 November, 2026/Basudev
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: BASUDEV SWAIN
Reason: Authentication
Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack
Date: 06-Nov-2026 16:51:47
Page 14 of 14