ASHRIT KUMAR PRADHAN vs STATE OF ODISHA
- Court
- Odisha High Court
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
W.P.(C) No. 25540 of 2026
CNR No. ODHC010608062026
In the matter of an application under Articles 226 & 227 of the
Constitution of India.
………………
Ashrit Kumar Pradhan …. Petitioner
-versus-
State of Odisha & Ors. Opposite Parties
….
For Petitioner : Mr. H. Dhal, Sr. Advocate
For Opp. Parties : Mr. A. Tripathy, AGA
PRESENT:
THE HON’BLE JUSTICE BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Date of Hearing: 27.10.2026 & Date of Judgment:27.10.2026
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Biraja Prasanna Satapathy, J .
1. This matter is taken up through hybrid mode.
2. Hard copy of the counter affidavit filed in Court be kept in record.
// 2 //
3. Heard Mr. H. Dhal, learned Sr. Counsel appearing for the Petitioner and
Mr. A. Tripathy, learned Addl. Govt. Advocate appearing for the Opp.
Parties.
4. The present writ petition has been filed inter alia with the following
prayer:-
“Under these circumstances the petitioner most humbly
prays that this Hon'ble Court be graciously pleased to issue
a Rule NISI calling upon the opposite parties to show cause
as to why;
i) the order of dismissal under Annexure-1 dated 6.9.2020
shall not be quashed;
ii) the order under Annexure-5 dated 14.7.2026 shall not be
quashed;
iii) the opposite parties shall not be directed to reinstate the
petitioner in service with all consequential benefits;
If the opposite parties fail to show cause or show
insufficient cause the Rule be made absolute.
And for this act of kindness the petitioner as in duty bound
shall ever pray.”
5. Learned Sr. Counsel appearing for the Petitioner contended that
Petitioner faced a departmental proceeding because of his implication in a
criminal case arising out of Rengali P.S. Case No. 151 dtd.29.08.2020
corresponding to T.R. No. 16/25/66 of 2020-22-24 in the file of learned
nd
2 Addl. Sessions Judge-cum-Judge (Special Court), Sambalpur.
5.1. It is contended that even though both the proceedings were initiated
on self-same charges, but without waiting for disposal of the criminal
proceeding, Petitioner was dismissed from his services vide order
Page 2 of 10
// 3 //
dtd.06.09.2020 under Annexure-1 so passed by Opp. Party No. 4 in
exercise of the power conferred under Article 311(2)(b) of the
Constitution of India r.w. Rule 828 of the PMR.
5.2. It is contended that such an order of dismissal was passed as because
Petitioner was implicated in the above noted Rengali P.S. Case No. 151
dtd.29.08.2020 for the offence under Sec. 20(b)(ii)(C) of the NDPS Act,
1985.
5.3. Learned Sr. Counsel appearing for the Petitioner contended that
subsequently Petitioner was acquitted in the criminal proceeding vide
judgment dtd.22.10.2025 under Annexure-2. After such acquittal in the
criminal proceeding, Petitioner made a grievance for his reinstatement
under Annexure-3. As the same was not considered, Petitioner
approached this Court by filing W.P.(C) No. 9470 of 2026. This Court
when directed Opp. Party No. 4 to take a decision on the Petitioner’s
grievance as made under Annexure-3, the same was rejected vide the
impugned order dtd.14.07.2026 under Annexure-5 inter alia on the ground
that there is no illegality or irregularity with regard to the order of
dismissal passed on 06.09.2020 under Annexure-1.
5.4. Learned Sr. Counsel appearing for the Petitioner contended that since
Petitioner was dismissed from his services because of his implication in
the criminal proceeding and in the criminal proceeding he has been
acquitted vide judgment dtd.22.10.2025 and no appeal has been preferred
by the State against such order of acquittal, in view of the decisions of the
Apex Court in the case of Ram Lal Vs. State of Rajasthan and Others,
(Civil Appeal No.7935 of 2023), so followed in the case of Maharana
Page 3 of 10
// 4 //
Pratap Singh Vs. State of Bihar , (Civil Appeal No.5497 of 2025) as well
as by this Court in the case of State of Odisha & Ors. vs. Bansidhar
Barik (W.A No.589 of 2025), Petitioner is eligible and entitled to get the
benefit of reinstatement with quashing of the impugned order
dtd.14.07.2026 under Annexure-5 and so also the order of dismissal
passed on 06.09.2020 under Annexure-1.
5.5. Hon’ble Apex Court in Para-13, 25 and 30 of the decision in the case
of Ram Lal 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
Page 4 of 10
// 5 //
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.”
5.6. Similarly 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 .
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.”
Page 5 of 10
// 6 //
4.7 . Similarly, this Court in para-1, 3, 7, 8, 10 & 21 of the decision has
in the case of Bansidhar Barik has held as follows:-
1. The present Writ Appeal arises from the judgment dated
20.11.2024 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.(C)
No.2265 of 2023, whereby the learned Single Judge was
pleased to set aside the order of dismissal dated
05.07.2022 passed by the Superintendent of Police,
Kandhamal and the appellate order dated 13.12.2022
passed by the Inspector General of Police, Southern
Range, Berhampur, and further directed reinstatement of
the writ petitioner with all consequential service and
financial benefits.
xxx xxx xxx
3. The facts of this case, in brief, are that the respondent
was serving as a Constable in the Odisha Police
establishment. On the basis of an allegation arising out of
Kandhamal Sadar P.S. Case No.68 dated 29.05.2015,
registered under Section 20(b)(ii)(C) read with Section 29
of the NDPS Act, he came under the scanner and was
exposed to both criminal prosecution and departmental
proceedings.
xxx xxx xxx
7 . Notwithstanding acquittal in the criminal case, the
disciplinary authority proceeded with the departmental
inquiry and ultimately passed order dated 05.07.2022
dismissing the respondent from service. The disciplinary
Page 6 of 10
// 7 //
authority concluded that the respondent had committed
grave misconduct unbecoming of police personnel.
xxx xxx xxx
8 . The respondent preferred departmental appeal in the
nature of representation before the Inspector General of
Police, Southern Range, Berhampur. The appellate
authority, by order dated 13.12.2022, affirmed the
dismissal order without granting relief.
xxx xxx xxx
10. The learned Single Judge, upon examining the rival
submissions advanced by the parties and upon careful
consideration of the materials available on record, placed
reliance upon the principles laid down in several
judgments. Upon such consideration, the learned Single
Judge came to hold that in the facts and circumstances of
the present case, the acquittal recorded by the criminal
court was not merely technical in nature but was based on
failure of the prosecution to establish the involvement of
the respondent in the alleged offence. The learned Single
Judge further held that the disciplinary authorities had
failed to demonstrate the existence of any independent
material or evidence which could justify the imposition of
punishment despite the acquittal recorded in the criminal
trial. Accordingly, the learned Single Judge set aside the
order of dismissal as well as the appellate order affirming
the same and directed reinstatement of the respondent with
all consequential service and financial benefits.
xxx xxx xxx
21 . Accordingly, the Writ Appeal being devoid of merit
stands dismissed.
Page 7 of 10
// 8 //
6. Basing on the counter affidavit so filed in Court today, learned Addl.
Govt. Advocate contended that since prior to his acquittal in the criminal
proceeding, Petitioner had already been dismissed vide order
dtd.06.09.2020, acquittal of the Petitioner in the criminal proceeding has
got no bearing to the order of dismissal.
6.1. It is also contended that consideration of a departmental proceeding is
different to that of the consideration in a criminal proceeding and factum
of acquittal in criminal proceeding has got no bearing to the decision
taken in the disciplinary proceeding. Stand taken in Para 7 of the counter
affidavit reads as follows:-
“7. That in reply to the averments made in para-6 of
the writ petition, it is humbly submitted that the undersigned
has carefully considered the grounds urged in the petitioner's
representation dated 10.11.2025. The principal contention
raised therein is founded upon a subsequent development,
namely, the petitioner's acquittal by the learned Trial Court in
connection with Rengali P.S. Case No. 151 dated 29.08.2020
U/s-s 20(b)(ii) (C)/29 of the NDPS Act and the consequential
prayer for his reinstatement in service. However, the said
subsequent development, by itself does not constitute a valid
legal ground for interference with the order of dismissal
already passed by the competent authority.
It is pertinent to mention here that the petitioner's
dismissal from service was not founded upon any conviction
recorded by a criminal court. Rather, the order of dismissal
was an independent disciplinary action taken by the competent
Disciplinary Authority in exercise of the power conferred
under Article 311(2)(b) of the Constitution of India, after
Page 8 of 10
// 9 //
recording the requisite satisfaction for reasons stated therein
that it was not reasonably practicable to hold a regular
departmental enquiry. Therefore, the subsequent acquittal of
the petitioner in the criminal case, by itself, does not ipso facto
render the order of dismissal illegal, invalid or otherwise
liable to be interfered with.”
6.2. It is accordingly contended that no illegality or irregularity has been
committed by Opp. Party No. 4 in dismissing the Petitioner from his
services vide order dtd.06.09.2020 under Annexure-1 so confirmed vide
order dtd.14.07.2026 under Annexure-5.
7. Having heard learned counsel appearing for the Parties and considering
the submissions made, it is found that because of his implication in a
criminal proceeding in Rengali P.S. Case No. 151 dtd.29.08.2020 for the
offence under Sec. 20(b)(ii)(c) of NDPS Act, 1985, Petitioner was straight
away dismissed from his services by Opp. Party No. 4 vide order
dtd.06.09.2020 under Annexure-1 in exercise of the power conferred
under Article 311(2)(b) of the Constitution of India r.w. Rule 828 of the
PMR.
7.1. However, it is found that Petitioner is acquitted in the criminal
proceeding vide judgment dtd.22.10.2025 under Annexure-2 by the
nd
learned 2 Addl. Sessions Judge-cum-Judge (Special Court), Sambalpur.
The fact which is not disputed no appeal has been filed by the State
challenging such order of acquittal.
7.2. Since Petitioner because of his implication in the criminal proceeding
was dismissed vide order dtd.06.09.2020 and he has now been acquitted
vide judgment dtd.22.10.2025 under Annexure-2 with having no appeal
Page 9 of 10
// 10 //
preferred by the State, challenging such order of acquittal, this Court
placing reliance of the decisions so cited (supra), is of the view that the
order of dismissal passed under Annexure-1 confirmed vide order under
Annexure-5 are no more sustainable in the eye of law.
7.3. Therefore, this Court is inclined to quash the orders issued under
Annexure-1 and 5 and quash them accordingly. While quashing both the
orders, this Court directs Opp. Party No. 4 to reinstate the Petitioner in his
services with passing of an appropriate order within a period of four (4)
weeks from the date of receipt of this order.
7.4. However, it is observed that break period of service be regularized on
notional basis and Petitioner will not be entitled to get any financial
benefit, save and except the service benefits as due and admissible.
8.The writ petition accordingly stands disposed of.
(BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY)
Judge
Orissa High Court, Cuttack
th
Dated the 27 October, 2026/Sneha
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: SNEHANJALI PARIDA
Reason: Authentication
Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack
Date: 28-Oct-2026 18:10:57
Page 10 of 10