Acquittal in criminal proceedings may necessitate reconsideration of disciplinary appeals when charges are the same, prioritizing justice over procedural delays.

Judgment :

Biraja Prasanna Satapathy, J.

1. This matter is taken up through hybrid mode.

2. Heard Mr. G.R. Sethi, learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner and Mr. M.R. Mohanty, learned Addl. Govt. Advocate appearing for the Opp. Parties.

3. The present writ petition has been filed inter alia with the following prayer:-

“It is therefore humbly prayed that this Hon’ble Court may graciously be pleased to admit the case, call for the records and after hearing both the parties pass the following reliefs;

i. To quash the order dtd.20.11.2015 under Annexure -4.

ii. To quash the order dtd.7.5.2025 under Annexure-7.

iii. To direct the Opposite Parties to grant all financial and consequential service benefits to the petitioner.

And pass such other order/orders as may be deemed fit and proper for the interest of justice.

And for this act of kindness, the petitioner as in duty bound shall ever pray.”

4. It is contended that in the disciplinary proceeding initiated vide Sambalpur District Proceeding No. 11 of 2014 dtd.10.07.2014, Petitioner when was imposed with the punishment vide order dtd.20.11.2015 under Annexure-4, Petitioner moved an appeal under Annexure-6 on 16.10.2024.

4.1. It is contended that such an appeal was filed with delay as Petitioner was also involved in a criminal case in G.R. Case No. 1202 of 2013 on self-same issue. However, Petitioner was acquitted in the said criminal proceeding vide judgment dtd.10.09.2024 under Annexure-5.

4.2. Learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner accordingly contended that since the criminal proceeding which was also initiated on the self-same issue, Petitioner was acquitted, Petitioner moved the appeal with a prayer to interfere with the order of punishment passed by the disciplinary authority-Opp. Party No. 4 under Annexure-2. But only on the ground that the appeal is barred by time, Opp. Party No. 3 refused to entertain the appeal vide the impugned order dd.07.05.2025 under Annexure-7.

4.3. Learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner contended that since the appeal is filed against the order of punishment and on the self- same issue Petitioner has been acquitted in the criminal proceeding vide Judgment under Annexure-5, the appeal could not have been dismissed on the ground of delay. It is also contended that claim of the Petitioner so made in the appeal is covered by 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) as well as order passed by this Court in the case of Hemanta Kumar Bhoi vs. State of Odisha & Ors. (W.P.(C) No. 27964 of 2024 disposed of on 18.09.2025).

4.4. 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 judgm