Orissa High Court
Ranjan Kumar Behera vs State Of Odisha & Ors. …. Opposite … on 5 March, 2026
Author: Biraja Prasanna Satapathy
Bench: Biraja Prasanna Satapathy
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
W.P.(C) No.18939 of 2024
In the matter of an application under Articles 226 & 227 of the
Constitution of India.
..................
Ranjan Kumar Behera .... Petitioner
-versus-
State of Odisha & Ors. .... Opposite Parties
For Petitioner : Ms. B.K. Pattanaik, Advocate
For Opp. Parties : Mr. C.K. Pradhan, AGA
PRESENT:
THE HON'BLE JUSTICE BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Date of Hearing: 05.03.2026 and Date of Judgment: 05.03.2026
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Biraja Prasanna Satapathy, J.
1. This matter is taken up through hybrid mode.
2. Heard Ms. B.K. Pattanaik, learned counsel appearing for the
Petitioner and Mr. C.K. Pradhan, learned Addl. Govt. Advocate
appearing for the Opp. Parties.
// 2 //
3. The present writ petition has been filed inter alia challenging order
dtd.29.06.2024 so passed by Opp. Party No. 2 under Annexure-8 and
the order of discharge issued vide order dt.14.09.2021 under
Annexure-3.
4. Learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner contended that
Petitioner was engaged as a Home Guard, where he joined in the year
2008. However, while so continuing and because of his implication in
Olatpur P.S. Case No. 72 dtd.08.07.2021 for the offence under Sec.
341, 294, 506, 307/34 of IPC, Petitioner was discharged from his duty
vide order dtd.14.09.2021 under Annexure-3.
4.1. It is contended that in the said criminal proceeding Petitioner
when was acquitted vide Judgment dtd.02.02.2022 by the learned
CJM-cum-Assistant Sessions Judge, Cuttack in S.T. No. 233 of 2021/
S.T. No. 50 of 2021 arising out of the aforesaid Olatpur P.S. Case No.
72 of 2021, Petitioner made a grievance before Opp. Party No. 3 with
a prayer to reengage him as a Home Guard under Annexure-6. As the
same was not considered, Petitioner moved Opp. Party No. 2 once
again by making a representation on 19.04.2023 under Annexure-6
and thereafter approached this Court by filing W.P.(C) No. 11146 of
2024 challenging the in action in reengaging him as a Home Guard.
Page 2 of 9
// 3 //
4.2. It is contended that this court vide order dtd.07.05.2024 under
Annexure-7 placing reliance on the decision in the case of Ram Lal
Vrs. State of Rajasthan and Ors. (Civil Appeal No.7935 of 2023),
when directed Opp. Party No. 2 to take a decision on the Petitioner’s
claim for reengagement, the same was rejected vide impugned order
dtd.29.06.2024 under Annexure-8 inter alia with the following
finding:-
“It is well settled in law that acquittal in
criminal cases do not automatically mean that a
person is suitable to hold any public post. Besides,
the standard of proof in a criminal case is beyond
reasonable doubt, but in administrative decision
making the standard of evidence is preponderance of
probability. His past conduct is not suitable for
consideration of his re-appointment.”
4.3. Learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner contended that since
because of his implication in the criminal proceeding, Petitioner was
discharged without initiation of any proceeding and without issuing
any show-cause, save and except the statutory notice in terms of the
Odisha Home Guard Act, 1961, the ground on which the impugned
order has been passed is not tenable in the eye of law.
4.4. Hon’ble Apex Court in Para-13, 25 and 30 of the decision in the
case of Ram Lal has held as follows:-
Page 3 of 9
// 4 //
“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.
xxx xxx xxx
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.”
4.5. Similarly, following the decision in the case of Ram Lal Hon’ble
Apex Court in Para-47 & 50 of the decision in the case of Maharana
Pratap Singh Vs. The State of Bihar and Others (Civil Appeal
No.5497 of 2025) has held as follows:-
Page 4 of 9
// 5 //
“47. While an acquittal in a criminal case does not
automatically entitle the accused to have an order of
setting aside of his dismissal from public service
following disciplinary proceedings, it is well-
established that when the charges, evidence, witnesses,
and circumstances in both the departmental inquiry
and the criminal proceedings are identical or
substantially similar, the situation assumes a different
context. In such cases, upholding the findings in the
disciplinary proceedings would be unjust, unfair, and
oppressive. This is a position settled by the decision
in G. M. Tank (supra), since reinforced by a decision of
recent origin in Ram Lal v. State of Rajasthan31.
xxx xxx xxx
50. The judgment acquitting the appellant reveals that
the prosecution “miserably failed to prove its case
beyond reasonable doubt” as both the informant and
PW-2 refused to identify the appellant in court. This
discussion confirms that the appellant’s acquittal was
based not on mere technicalities. In Ram Lal (supra),
this Court held that terms like “benefit of doubt” or
“honourably acquitted” should not be treated as
formalities. The Court’s duty is to focus on the
substance of the judgment, rather than the terminology
used.”
4.6. It is further contended that since Petitioner has been acquitted in
the criminal proceeding and no appeal has been filed against such an
order of acquittal, in view of the decision in the case of Ram Lal so
followed in Maharana Pratap Singh so cited supra, Petitioner is
eligible and entitled to get the benefit of reengagement as a Home
Guard. It is accordingly contended that with quashing of the impugned
order as well as the impugned order of discharge, appropriate
direction be issued to Opp. Party Nos. 2 & 3 to reengage the Petitioner
with passing of an appropriate order within a reasonable time period.
Page 5 of 9
// 6 //
5. Learned Addl. Govt. Advocate on the other hand while supporting
the impugned order, made his submission basing on the stand taken in
the counter affidavit so filed. The stand taken in Para 8 & 9 of the
counter affidavit reads as follows:-
“8. That in reply to the averments made in Paras-5 & 6
of the writ petition it is humbly submitted that the
Petitioner was discharged from Cuttack District Home
Guards Organization vide District Order No. 35 dtd.
14.09.2021 (Annexure-3) for his involvement in Olatpur
P.S case No.72 dtd.08.07.2021 u/s 341,294,506,307,34
IPC was arrested and forwarded to the Judicial custody.
Prior to his discharge he was issued with one month
notice vide letter No.251/HGS dtd.22.07.2021
(Annexure-1) to submit his explanation. He submitted his
explanation that found unsatisfactory for which he was
discharge from Home Guard Organization. The learned
trial court acquitted him from the charges as the
prosecution miserable fail to prove the charges against
him. The standard of proof in criminal case is beyond
reasonable doubt but the administrative decision making
the standard of evidence is preponderance of probability.
As such the prayer of the petitioner is not tenable.
9. That in reply to the averments made in Para7 of the
writ petition it is humbly submitted that the petitioner
was discharged from Home Guard Organization Vide
District Order No.35 dtd. 14.09.2021 ( Annexure-3) for
his involvement in Olatpur P.S. case No.72
dtd.08.07.2021 U/s 341,294,506,307,24 IPC for
committing the offence with the standard of evidence. As
Page 6 of 9
// 7 //such the prayer of the petitioner for reinstatement in
service is not tenable.”
5.1. It is contended that since Petitioner was discharged from his
service by giving one month notice, even if Petitioner is acquitted in
the criminal proceeding, he is not eligible to get the benefit of
reengagement.
6. Having heard learned counsel appearing for the Parties and
considering the submission made, this Court finds that Petitioner was
engaged as a Home Guard in the year 2008 vide Cuttack District
Order No.03 dtd.03.05.2008. While so continuing and because of his
implication in Olatpur P.S. Case No. 72 dtd.08.07.2021, Petitioner
was discharged from his services in terms of Section 8 of the Odisha
Home Guard Act, 1961 vide order dtd.14.09.2021 under Annexure-3.
6.1. However, it is found that Petitioner in the criminal case was
acquitted vide judgment dtd.02.02.2022 under Annexure-4 and the
said acquittal is not on the ground of benefit of doubt and it is a case
of clean acquittal. After such acquittal in the criminal proceeding,
Petitioner made several representations before Opp. Party Nos. 2 & 3,
with a prayer to reengage him. When the same was not considered, he
approached this Court by filing W.P.(C) No. 11144 of 2024. This
Page 7 of 9
// 8 //
Court vide order dtd.07.05.2024 under Annexure-7, relying on the
decision in the case of Ram Lal so cited supra, when directed Opp.
Party No. 2 to consider his claim, the same has been rejected vide the
impugned order dtd.29.06.2024 under Annexure-8.
6.2. Placing reliance on the decision in the case of Ram Lal so
followed in Maharana Pratap Singh and the fact that Petitioner was
discharged only because of his implication in the criminal proceeding.
Since Petitioner has been acquitted vide Judgment dtd.02.02.2022
under Annexure-4 and no appeal has been filed by the State
challenging such acquittal, it is the view of this Court that the ground
on which Petitioner’s claim has been rejected vide the impugned order
under Annexure-8 is not sustainable in the eye of law.
6.3. Not only that the notice issued under Annxure-1 though was
replied to by the Petitioner, but in terms of Annexure-1, and without
initiating any proceeding, Petitioner was straight away discharged
from service vide the impugned order dt.14.09.2021 under Annexure-
3. The ground on which Petitioner’s claim was rejected is not
sustainable as no proceeding was ever intimated after issuance of
Annexure-1. Therefore, this Court while quashing order
dtd.14.09.2021 under Annexure-3 and order dt.29.06.2024 under
Page 8 of 9
// 9 //
Annexure-8, directs Opp. Party No. 3 to pass an order of
reengagement in favour of the Petitioner within a period of two (2)
weeks from the date of production of copy of this order.
7. The writ petition accordingly stands disposed of.
(BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY)
JUDGE
Orissa High Court, Cuttack
Dated the 5th March, 2026/Sneha
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: SNEHANJALI PARIDA
Reason: Authentication
Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack
Date: 07-Mar-2026 10:36:12
Page 9 of 9