An acquittal in criminal proceedings following a dismissal from service due to conviction can justify reinstatement if the related charges substantially overlap, ensuring fairness in judicial review.

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 passed on 30.06.2015 under Annexure-5 and further order passed on 22.04.2024 under Annexure-9 as well as order dtd.28.08.2024 under Annexure-12.

4. It is contended that because of his conviction and sentence in S.T. Case No.44/19 of 2014 by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Nayagarh on 29.05.2015, Petitioner was dismissed from his services vide order dtd.30.06.2015 under Annexure-5.

4.1. It is however contended that challenging such order of conviction and sentence, Petitioner approached this Court by filing Criminal Appeal No.318 of 2015. This Court vide judgment dtd.19.10.2023 under Annexure-6, while allowing the appeal set aside the order of conviction and sentence passed on 29.05.2015.

4.2. After being acquitted from the order of conviction and sentence, Petitioner moved an application under Annexure-7, with a prayer to reinstate him in his services. However, such prayer when was not considered, Petitioner approached this Court by filing W.P.(C) No.41250 of 2023. This Court vide order dtd.21.12.2023 under Annexure-8 directed Opposite Party No.4 to take a decision on the Petitioner’s claim to get the benefit of reinstatement. However, vide order dtd.22.04.2024 under Annexure-9, prayer of the Petitioner to get the benefit of reinstatement was rejected by Opposite Party No.4. Challenging such order, Petitioner though moved the appellate authority, but the appellate authority vide order dtd.28.08.2024 under Annexure-12 rejected the prayer on the face of the order passed by this Court on 21.08.2024 in W.P.(C) No.20043 of 2024.

4.3. It is contended that this Court in its order under Annexure-11, directed the Appellate Authority to take into consideration of the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Ram Lal Vs. State of Rajasthan and Ors. /b>. (Civil Appeal No.7935 of 2023). 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.

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.”

4.4. It is however contended that without proper appreciation of this Court’s order dtd.21.08.2024 and the view expressed by the Hon’ble Apex Court i