IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C) No.2356 of 2026 In the matter of an application under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India.

………………

Dr. Debashis Mohapatra …. Petitioner -versus-

State of Odisha & Anr. …. Opposite Parties For Petitioner : Mr. N. Biswal, Advocate For Opp. Parties : Mr. P.P. Behera, ASC PRESENT:

THE HON’BLE JUSTICE BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Date of Hearing: 17.02.2026 and Date of Judgment: 17.02.2026 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Biraja Prasanna Satapathy, J

1. This matter is taken up through hybrid mode.

2. Pursuant to order dtd.27.01.2026, learned Addl. Standing Counsel produced the instruction provided by the Department vide letter dtd.17.02.2026 in Court. The same be kept in record.

3. Basing on the instruction so provided, learned Addl. Standing Counsel contended that charges in both the vigilance proceeding and departmental proceeding though are identical and similar, but there is no bar to proceed in the departmental proceeding.

4. Heard Mr. N. Biswal, learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner and Mr. P.P. Behera, learned Addl. Standing Counsel appearing for the Opp.

Parties.

5. The present writ petition has been filed inter alia with the following prayer:-

“It is, therefore prayed that this Hon’ble Court may graciously be pleased to admit this writ application, issue notice to the Opp. Parties, call for the relevant records and after hearing the counsel for the parties may pass the following orders/directions;

i) To quash the impugn order of punishment dated- 20.11.2025 passed by the disciplinary authority i.e. Opposite party No-1 under Annexure-13 on the ground that the petitioner has been acquitted in the alleged Vigilance proceeding initiated on the self- same charges vide Judgment dated-20.04.2024 passed by the Learned Special Judge (Vigilance), Balasore in T.R Case No-02/2017 under Annexure-10 as per the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme court in the case of "Ram Lal -Vrs- State of Rajasthan and Ors." reported in AIR 2024 SC 637 as well as in the case of "Maharana Pratap Singh Vs. The State of Bihar and Others" reported in 2025(4) SLR 915 (SC)

ii) To declare the entire disciplinary proceedings initiated vide memorandum dated-27.08.2016 under Annexure-3 as vitiated.

iii) To quash the impugn order of suspension dated-

28.04.2016 under Annexure-1.

iv) To direct the Opposite parties to extend all the service and consequential benefits to the petitioner within the time framed by this Hon’ble Court.

And/or pass such other further order/orders as this Hon’ble Court deems just, equitable and proper in the facts and circumstances of the present case;

And for this act of kindness, the Petitioner shall as in duty bound ever pray.”

6. It is contended that even though the departmental proceeding was initiated because of the implication of the Petitioner in the vigilance proceeding and in the said vigilance proceeding, Petitioner was acquitted vide judgment dtd.20.04.2024 under Annexure-10, but factum of such acquittal even though was raised by the Petitioner while submitting his reply to the 2^nd show-cause under Annexure-12, but the disciplinary authority-Opp. Party No. 1 without considering that aspect and the judgment governing the field, imposed the punishment while disposing the proceeding vide impugned order dtd.20.11.2025 under Annexure-13.

6.1. It is contended that 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) and since it is admitted that the charges are same in both the proceedings, Petitioner could not have been imposed with the punishment vide the impugned order.

6.2. Hon’ble Apex Court in Para-13, 25 and 30 of the decision in the case of Ram Lal has h