Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2025 Supreme(Ori) 488

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
Biraja Prasanna Satapathy, J.
Selina Parichha - Petitioner
Versus
State of Odisha & Others - Opposite Parties
W.P.(C) No.26120 of 2022
Decided On : 20-11-2025

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner:Ms. B.K. Pattanaik, Advocate
For Opposite Party : Mr. S.P. Das, Addl. Standing Counsel

A clean acquittal in a criminal case can lead to quashing of disciplinary actions based on identical charges, emphasizing justice and fairness in administrative proceedings.

Headnote:(A) Disciplinary Proceedings - Acquittal in Criminal Case - The petitioner challenged the disciplinary order imposed for misconduct after being acquitted in related vigilance proceedings, citing the principles established in Ram Lal v. State of Rajasthan and Maharana Pratap Singh v. State of Bihar. The court found that the charges in the departmental and criminal proceedings were identical, and thus, upheld the acquittal leading to quashing of the disciplinary action. (Paras 4.7, 6.3)

Facts of the case:
The petitioner was charged and suspended due to allegations in a vigilance case, leading to a disciplinary proceeding which resulted in punishment before his acquittal in the vigilance case. (Paras 4.4, 4.6)

Findings of Court:
The court determined that the disciplinary punishment was unjust in light of the clean acquittal in the related criminal case and therefore quashed the disciplinary actions taken against the petitioner. (Paras 6.4)

Issues: The main issue addressed was whether a clean acquittal in a criminal proceeding can lead to the quashing of a disciplinary action based on identical charges. (Paras 4.7)

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that a clean acquittal in a vigilance proceeding affects the validity of disciplinary proceedings based on those charges, emphasizing that allowing such disciplinary findings to stand post-acquittal would be 'unjust, unfair, and oppressive.' (Paras 6.3)

Result: The order of punishment was quashed, directing the authority to treat the suspension period as leave due. (Paras 6.5)

Table of Content
1. challenge to disciplinary action and its basis (Para 3 , 4)
2. state's position on dual proceedings (Para 5)
3. court's view on disciplinary proceedings post-acquittal (Para 6)
4. court orders for quashing punishment orders (Para 7)

JUDGMENT :

Biraja Prasanna Satapathy, J

1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual/Physical) Mode.

2. Heard learned counsel appearing for the Parties.

3. The present Writ Petition has been filed inter alia challenging order dtd.08.10.2014 so passed under Annexure-8 by the disciplinary authority-Opposite Party No.3, further confirmed by the appellate authority-Opposite Party No.2 vide order dtd.10.06.2015 under Annexure-10 and so also the rejection of the Petitioner’s claim to set aside the order of punishment after his acquittal in the vigilance proceeding, which has been initiated on self-same charges in Berhampur Vigilance P.S. Case No.43 dtd.04.12.2009, vide order dtd.03.02.2022 under Annexure-13.

4. It is the case of the Petitioner that Petitioner on his implication in Berhampur Vigilance P.S. Case No.43, dtd.04.12.2009, when was arrested and remained in custody w.e.f. 05.12.2009, he was placed under suspension vide order dtd.05.12.2009 and the proceeding was also initiated vide Ganjam District Proceeding No.16 dtd.31.12.2010 under Annexure-1.

4.1. It is contended that such a proceeding was initiated because of his implication in the aforesaid Berhampur Vigilance P.S. No.43 dtd. 04.12.2009.

4.2. Learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner contended that Petitioner prior to disposal of the vigilance proceeding was imposed with the punishment of one Black Mark and period of suspension from 05.12.2009 to 14.02.2011, was treated as such vide order dtd.18.10.2014 of Opposite Party No.3 under Annexure-8. Appeal preferred by the Petitioner was also rejected by the appellate authority-Opposite Party No.2 vide the impugned order dtd.10.06.2015 under Annexure-10.

4.3. However, since in the vigilance proceeding, Petitioner was acquitted vide judgment dtd.10.05.2018 under Annexure-11-Series,Petitioner seeking quashing of the order of punishment moved an application before Opposite Party No.2 on the ground that because of his acquittal in the vigilance proceeding the order of punishment passed on 18.10.2014 by Opposite Party No.3 is required to be set aside. Claim of the Petitioner, when was not considered, he approached this Court by filing W.P.(C) No.12784 of 2021. This Court vide order dtd.07.06.2021 under Annexure-12, when directed for consideration of the Petitioner’s grievance, the same was rejected vide order dtd.03.02.2022 under Annexure-13 of Opposite Party No.2.

4.4. Learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner contended that in the departmental proceeding so initiated, the enquiry officer after conducting the inquiry, submitted the report under Annexure-4, holding therein that the charges against the Petitioner could not be established. However on the face of such report submitted by the enquiry officer, the departmental authority-Opposite Party No.3 proceeded with the matter and imposed the punishment vide order dtd.18.10.2014 under Annexure-8.

4.5. The appellate authority-Opposite Party No.2 so moved, also rejected the appeal vide order dtd.10.06.2015 under Annexure-10.

4.6. However, since in the vigilance proceeding, Petitioner was acquitted vide judgment dtd.10.05.2018, he moved Opposite Party No.2, with a request to set aside the order of punishment so imposed vide order dtd.18.10.2014 under Annexure-8, and confirmed vide order dtd.10.06.2015 under Annexure-10. However, such claim of the Petitioner was rejected without proper appreciation vide order dtd.03.02.2022 under Annexure-13.

4.7. Placing reliance on 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), it is contended that Pet