IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

W.P.(C) No.1346 of 2024

In the matter of an application under Articles 226 & 227 of the

Constitution of India.

………………

Tusar Kanta Majhi …. Petitioner

-versus-

State of Odisha & Ors. …. Opposite Parties

For Petitioner : Mr. J.K. Lenka, Advocate

For Opp. Parties : Mr. P.K. Panda, ASC

PRESENT:

THE HON’BLE JUSTICE BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Date of Hearing: 05.08.2025 and Date of Judgment: 05.08.2025

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Biraja Prasanna Satapathy, J

1. This matter is taken up through hybrid mode.

2. Heard Dr. J.K. Lenka, learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner and Mr. P.K. Panda, learned Addl. Standing Counsel 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 let this Hon’ble Court may graciously be pleased to consider the facts stated above, call for the records and issue notice to the Opposite Parties in Rule NISI, calling upon the Opp.

Parties to show cause as to why;

i) under the disengagement order Annexure-5 shall not be quashed;

ii) the order of rejection for reinstatement of the petitioner in service dated 25.10.2019 under Annexure-7 and order dated 18.12.2023 under Annexure-11 shall not be quashed.

iii) the Opp. Parties shall not be directed to reinstate the petitioner in forthwith;

iv) the Opp. Parties shall not be directed to regularize the service of the petitioner at par with his batch mates and to extend all service benefits accrued in favour of the petitioner pursuant to the Judgment of acquittal under Annexure-8;

if the Opp. Parties fail to show cause or show insufficient cause then the Rule shall be made absolute.”

4. It is contended that the Petitioner vide order dtd.13.09.2010 under Annexure-2 on being sponsored by the Committee of Chief Engineers was engaged as a GPTA on contractual basis. However, while so continuing when Petitioner was implicated in a vigilance case and remained in custody for more than 48 hours, he was terminated from his services vide order dtd.28.06.2017 under Annexure-5.

4.1. Challenging such order of termination when Petitioner approached this Court by filing W.P.(C) No. 15422 of 2019 and this Court directed for consideration of his prayer for reengagement as GPTA in Rayagada district, the same was rejected vide order dtd.25.10.2019 under Annexure-7. It is contended that in the vigilance proceeding basing on which he was terminated vide order dtd.28.06.2017, he was acquitted vide Judgment dtd.31.03.2023 under Annexure-8. After such acquittal in the vigilance proceeding Petitioner made a prayer before Opp. Party No.

1 to reinstate him in service.

4.2. It is contended that when prayer for such reengagement after his acquittal in the vigilance proceeding was not considered, Petitioner approached this Court by filing W.P.(C) No. 37876 of 2023. This Court vide order dtd.23.11.2023 under Annexure-10 when directed for reconsideration taking into account the order of acquittal passed in the vigilance proceeding, the same was again rejected by Opp. Party No. 1 vide order dtd.18.12.2023 under Annexure-11.

4.3. Learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner contended that Petitioner was so terminated while continuing in service on contractual basis because of his implication in the vigilance case and remaining in custody for more than 48 hours.

4.4. It is contended that since the ground on which Petitioner was terminated is the initiation of the vigilance proceeding and in the said proceeding he has now been honourably acquitted vide Judgment dtd.31.03.2023 under Annexure-A, in view of the decision rendered by Apex Court in the case of Ram Lal Vs. State of Rajasthan & 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 is eligib