TANKADHAR NAG vs STATE OF ODISHA
- Court
- Odisha High Court
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
W.P.(C) No.10924 of 2023
CNR No. ODHC010263362023
In the matter of an application under Article 226 & 227 of
the Constitution of India, 1950.
………………
Tankadhar Nag …. Petitioner
-versus-
State of Odisha & Others …. Opp. Parties
For Petitioner : Mr. L. K. Mohanty, Advocate
For Opp. Parties : Dr. P.P. Behera,
Addl. Standing Counsel
PRESENT:
THE HONBLE JUSTICE BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY
Date of Hearing: 02.11.2026 and Date of Judgment: 02.11.2026
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Biraja Prasanna Satapathy, J .
1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid
Arrangement (Virtual/Physical) Mode.
2. Heard learned counsel appearing for the Parties.
// 2 //
3. Pursuant to the order dated 10.08.2026, learned
Additional Standing Counsel for the State produced
instruction so provided by the Department in Court with
service of copy on learned counsel appearing for the
Petitioner. The same be kept on record.
4 . Heard learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner
and Mr. Behera, learned Additional Standing Counsel for
the State.
5. This Writ Petition has been filed inter alia with the
following prayer:-
“It is, therefore, prayed that this Hon’ble Court may
graciously be pleased to issue notice to the opp.
Parties, calling upon them to file show cause as to
why direction shall not be issued to quash the order
of punishment dated 30.7.2021 issued opp. party
no.1 as communicated by Opp. Party No.2 dated
11.8.2021 under Annexure-9 as same has been
passed violating of Rule 15(10) of OCS(CCA) Rules
1962 as well as judgment passed by Hon’ble Apex
Court of India reported in M Paul Anthony Vrs
Bharat Gold Mines 1998 S.C. 2118 and after
hearing the parties be pleased to quash / set aside
the order dated 30.07.2021 as communicated dated
11.8.2021 under Annexure-9;
The Opp. parties be further directed to release all
service and financial benefits in favour of the
petitioner after quashing the order of punishment
under Annexure-9 within a date; to be fixed by this
Hon’ble Court;
Any other pass any other order/orders,
direction/directions as deemed fit and proper;
Page 2 of 10
// 3 //
And for which act of kindness, the petitioner shall
as in duty bound, ever pray.”
6. Learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner
contended that even though a disciplinary proceeding was
initiated against the Petitioner by Opposite Party No.1
vide memorandum dated 05.01.2015 under Annexure-1
with similar charge as like the vigilance proceeding in
Sambalpur Vigilance P.S. Case No.42 of 2014 dated
20.06.2014, but prior to the disposal of vigilance
proceeding, Opposite Party No.1 proceeded with the
departmental proceeding and imposed the punishment
vide order dated 30.07.2021 under Annexure-9.
Opposite party No.1 imposed the following
punishments vide the said order:-
(1) Two increments withheld with cumulative effect.
(2) Promotion withheld for four years.
(3) Suspension period from 26.7.2014 to 06.05.2015
shall be treated as such .
6.1. Learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner
contended that though Petitioner against such order of
punishment made a grievance before the Hon’ble
Governor, but the same was never considered. It is,
Page 3 of 10
// 4 //
however, contended that in the vigilance proceeding
basing on which the disciplinary proceeding was initiated
vide Memorandum dated 05.01.2015, petitioner was
acquitted by the learned Special Judge, Bolangir vide his
judgment dated 16.02.2024 so enclosed under
Annexure-11.
6.2 . It is contended that since Petitioner was acquitted in
the vigilance proceeding, charges in the departmental
proceeding being same to that of the vigilance proceeding,
the order of punishment so passed by opposite party No.1
under Anenxure-9, is no more sustainable in the eye of
law and requires inference of this Court.
6 . 3. In support of his submission, learned counsel
appearing for the Petitioner relied on the decisions of the
Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Ram Lal vs. State of
Rajasthan & Ors. (Civil Appeal No. 7935 of2023) so
followed in the case of Maharana Pratap Singh vs. The
State of Bihar & Ors. (Civil Appeal No. 5497 of 2025)
and decision of this Court in the case of State of Odisha
Page 4 of 10
// 5 //
and others Vrs. Bansidhar Bariki (W.A. No.589 of
2025, disposed of on 20.03.2026) .
6.4 . 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)]
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.”
6.5. Hon’ble Apex Court in Para-47 & 50 of the decision
in the case of Maharana Pratap Singh has held as
follows:-
Page 5 of 10
// 6 //
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.”
6.6. This Court in Para-20 of the decision in the case of
Banshidhar Bariki has held as follows:-
To substantiate the aforementioned charge, the inquiry
“20.
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”.
Page 6 of 10
// 7 //
6.7 . Placing reliance on the aforesaid three decisions,
learned counsel for the Petitioner contended that since
Petitioner was acquitted in the vigilance proceeding,
charge in the departmental proceeding being the same,
the order of punishment passed in the disciplinary
proceeding is liable to be quashed by this Court. It is,
however fairly contended that Petitioner has already
retired from service, on attaining the age of
superannuation on 31.03.2025.
7 . Considering the submission and the fact that on the
face of the notice being issued vide order dated
18.04.2023, no counter affidavit has been filed, this
Court passed the following order on 10.08.2026:-
2. Heard learned counsel appearing for the Parties.
“
3. It is contended that even though the disciplinary
proceeding was initiated because of the implication of the
Petitioner in criminal proceeding in Sambalpur Vigilance
P.S. Case No. 42 of 2014, but in the disciplinary
proceeding, Petitioner was imposed with the punishment
vide the impugned order dtd.30.07.2021 under Annexure-
9 prior to disposal of the vigilance proceeding.
4. It is contended that in the vigilance proceeding Petitioner
in the meantime has been acquitted vide judgment dtd.
16.02.2024 under Annexure-ll. Accordingly, it is contended
that in view of the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the
case of Ram Lal vs. State of of Rajasthan & Ors. (Civil
Appeal No. 7935 of2023) so followed in the case of
Maharana Pratap Singh vs. The State of Bihar &
Page 7 of 10
// 8 //
Ors. (Civil Appeal No. 5497 of 2025) and so also the
decision in the case of State of Odisha & Others Vs.
Bansidhar Barik (W.A. No.589 of 2025) disposed of on
20.03.2026, the order of punishment requires interference
of this Court.
5. Learned Addl. Govt. Advocate is directed to obtain
instruction on the issue raised.
6. As requested by the learned AGA, list this matter in the
week commencing August, 2026. Copy of the order so
produced in Court be kept in record
.”
8 . Basing on the aforesaid order and the instruction
provided by the Department, learned Additional Standing
Counsel contended that even though the charges in both
the proceedings are same, but since prior to his acquittal
in the criminal proceeding, petitioner had already been
imposed with the punishment, vide the impugned order
dated 30.07.2021 under Annexure-9, no illegality and
irregularity can be found with the impugned order.
8 . 1. It is further contended that factum of proof being
different in a disciplinary proceeding and in the vigilance
proceeding, acquittal in the vigilance proceeding is not a
ground to interfere with the order of punishment passed
in the disciplinary proceeding. It is accordingly contended
that no illegality and irregularity can be found with the
Page 8 of 10
// 9 //
impugned order and the writ petition is liable for
dismissal.
9 . Having heard and considering the submissions
made, it is found that Petitioner while in service the
proceeding in question was initiated vide Memorandum
under Annexure-1, because of his implication in the
vigilance proceeding in Sambalpur Vigilance P.S. Case
No.42 of 2014. It is found that prior to the disposal of the
vigilance proceeding, petitioner was imposed with the
punishment in the disciplinary proceeding by Opposite
Party No.1 vide order dated 30.07.2021 under
Annexure-9.
9 . 1. However, it is found that in the Vigilance
proceeding, petitioner was acquitted by the learned
Special Judge vide his judgment dated 16.02.2024 under
Annexure-11 and no appeal has been filed challenging
such order of acquittal.
9.2. Placing reliance on decisions in the case of Ram Lal
so followed in the case of Maharana Pratap Singh and
of this Court in the case of Bansidhar Bariki so cited
Page 9 of 10
// 10 //
supra , this Court is of the view that since charges in both
the proceedings are same, because of the acquittal in the
criminal proceeding, the punishment imposed in the
disciplinary proceeding requires interference. Accordingly,
this Court is inclined to quash the order of punishment
so passed against the petitioner vide office order dated
30.07.2021 under Annexure-9. While quashing the said
order, this Court allows this Writ Petition.
9.3. In view of the quashing of the order, Petitioner be
released with his entitlements as due and admissible
including revision of pension.
10 . The Writ Petition accordingly stands disposed of.
(Biraja Prasanna Satapathy)
Judge
Orissa High Court, Cuttack
Dated the 2nd November, 2026/Utkalika
Signature Not
Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: UTKALIKA NAYAK
Designation: Sr. Stenographer
Reason: Authentication
Location: High Court of
Orissa, Cuttack
Date: 04-Nov-2026 15:30:14
Page 10 of 10