An acquittal in criminal proceedings may necessitate re-engagement in public service if charges are identical, reinforcing the need for proper judicial consideration of circumstances in disciplinary actions.

JUDGMENT :

Biraja Prasanna Satapathy, J.

1. On the oral prayer made by learned counsel for the petitioner, he is permitted to correct the description of O.P.No.3 in Court.

2. Heard Mr. D.R. Bhokta, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. M.R. Mohanty, learned Addl. Govt. Advocate for the State.

3. Petitioner has filed the present Writ Petition inter alia with the following prayer:-

“The petitioner, therefore, 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 a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ or writs shall not be issued;

i ) quashing the order dtd. 19.3.2024 passed by the Opp. Party no.2 under annexure-7 and directing the Opp. parties to give the petitioner re-appointment to the post of Home Guard in Sambalpur district.

ii) if the opposite parties fail to show-cause or show insufficient cause to make the said rule absolute; and

iii ) to pass such other order/orders and to issue such other writ/writs as would afford complete relief to the petitioners;”

4. It is contended that while continuing as a Home Guard because of his implication in a criminal case, petitioner was discharged from his work vide order dated 09.08.2017 under Annexure-3 by the Commandant of Home Guards-O.P. No.3. It is contended that in the Criminal Proceeding basing on which petitioner was so discharged, petitioner was acquitted vide judgment dated 07.11.2017 under Annexure-4. However, after his acquittal in the Criminal Case, even though petitioner immediately moved O.P. No.3 and thereafter O.P. No.2, seeking his re-instatement, but the same was initially rejected by O.P. No.2 vide order dated 20.04.2018 under Annexure-5.

4.1. It is contended that challenging such order passed on 20.04.2018, petitioner approached this Court by filing W.P.(C) No.15879 of 2019. This Court vide order dated 30.04.2024, while setting aside the order dated 20.04.2018, disposed of the Writ Petition by directing the O.P. No.2 to take a fresh decision taking into account 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).

4.2. It is contended that without proper appreciation of 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), petitioner’s claim has again been rejected vide the impugned order dated 19.03.2024 under Annexure-7. 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)]

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 decl