IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

W.P.(C) No. 31053 of 2025

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

Constitution of India.

………………

Surat Kumar Kuldip …. Petitioner

-versus-

State of Odisha & Ors. …. Opposite Parties

For Petitioners : Mr. P.K. Das, Advocate

For Opp. Parties : Mr. S.P. Das,

Addl. Standing Counsel

PRESENT:

THE HON’BLE JUSTICE BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY

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

Date of Hearing: 05.12.2025 & Date of Judgment: 05.12.2025

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

Biraja Prasanna Satapathy, J

1. This matter is taken up through hybrid mode.

2. Heard Mr. P.K. Das, learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner and Mr. S.P. Das, learned Addl. Standing Counsel appearing for the

Opp. Parties.

3. The present writ petition has been filed inter alia challenging order dtd.06.07.2024 so passed by Opp. Party No. 2 under Annexure-5. Vide the said order claim of the Petitioner for his reinstatement in his service after being acquitted in the criminal proceeding vide Judgment dtd.21.09.2015 under Annexure-3 has been rejected.

4. Learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner contended that Petitioner was appointed as a temporary Constable vide order dtd.01.02.1986 under Annexure-1 of Opp. Party No. 3. While so continuing a criminal proceeding was initiated against him for the offence under Sec. 420/468/471 of the Indian Penal Code in G.R. Case No. 230/1994 with the allegation that Petitioner in order to get the benefit of appointment has produced a forged S.T. caste certificate in support of his caste even though he belongs to Christian community.

4.1. Simultaneously a departmental proceeding was also initiated against him and Petitioner was placed under suspension initially. In the departmental proceeding, Petitioner was dismissed from his services vide order dtd.09.10.2009 of Opp. Party No. 4. The appeal as well as revision filed against such order of dismissal, were also rejected by the appellate authority, and by the revisional authority-

Opp. Party No. 2 vide order dt.09.02.2016 under Annexure-2.

4.2. It is contended that by the time revisional authority-Opp. Party NO. 2 confirmed the order of dismissal vide order dtd.09.02.2016 under Annexure-2, Petitioner had already been acquitted in the criminal proceeding vide judgment dtd.21.09.2015 under Annexure-3. It is accordingly contended that, since in the criminal proceeding Petitioner was honorably acquitted and prosecution failed to prove the charges beyond all reasonable doubt vide judgment dt.21.09.2015 under Annexure-3, on the face of such order of acquittal, the revisional authority should not have confirmed the order of punishment passed by the disciplinary authority, so confirmed by the appellate authority vide order dt.09.02.2016 under Annexure-2.

4.3. It is also contended that since in the criminal proceeding and disciplinary proceeding, the charges were same, after his acquittal in the criminal proceeding, Petitioner became entitled for his reinstatement in service. In support of his submission reliance was placed to a decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of G.M.

Tank Vs. State of Gujarat & Anr. reported in AIR 2006 SC 2129.

4.4. Hon’ble Apex Court in Para 31 & 32 of the judgment in the case of G.M. Tank has held as follows:-

“31. The judgments relied on by the learned counsel appearing for the respondents are distinguishable on facts and on law. In this case, the departmental proceedings and the criminal case are based on identical and similar set of facts and the charge in a Departmental case against the appellant and the charge before the Criminal Court are one and the same. It is true that the nature of charge in the departmental proceedings and in the criminal case is grave. The nature of the case launched against the appellant on the basis of evidence and material collected against him during enquiry and investigation and as reflected