Orissa High Court
Pragnya Paramita Swain vs State Of Odisha And Others . Opposite … on 22 May, 2026
Author: A.K. Mohapatra
Bench: A.K.Mohapatra
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
W.P.(C) No.6795 of 2025
Applications under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India.
Pragnya Paramita Swain . Petitioner
Represented By Adv.
Mr. Manoranjan Mohanty, Senior Advocate,
assisted by Ms. Subhasree Mohanty,
Advocate.
-versus-
State of Odisha and others . Opposite Party
Represented By Adv.
Mr. Debendra Kumar Sahoo, AGA.
W.P.(C) No.12944 of 2025
Sandhyarani Pallauri . Petitioner
Represented By Adv.
Mr. Manoranjan Mohanty, Senior Advocate,
assisted by Ms. Subhasree Mohanty,
Advocate.
-versus-
State of Odisha and others . Opposite Party
Represented By Adv.
Mr. Debendra Kumar Sahoo, AGA.
Page 1 of 50
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.K.MOHAPATRA
Date of hearing : 18.05.2026 | Date of Judgment : 22.05.2026
A.K. Mohapatra, J. :
1. The W.P.(C) No.6795 of 2025 has been filed by the Petitioner-
Pragnya Paramita Swain with a prayer to quash the impugned order of
rejection dated 13.02.2025, passed by the Block Education Officer,
Kuarmunda, under Annexure-19, along with a further prayer to direct the
Opposite Parties to re-instate the Petitioner in service and allow her all
consequential service and financial benefits emanating therefrom.
2. Likewise, the W.P.(C) No.12944 of 2025 has been filed by the
Petitioner-Sandhyarani Pallauri assailing the impugned rejection order dated
28.03.2025 along with the revised rejection order dated 18.06.2025 passed by
the Collector-cum-Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad, Sundargarh, under
Annexure-12 and Annexure-12(a) respectively. The Petitioner has also made
an additional prayer to issue a direction to the Opposite Parties to reinstate
her service, regularise her as Elementary Level-V Teacher from the date of
her eligibility as per the Government Notification dated 22.12.2016, and to
disburse all her consequential service and financial benefits.
Page 2 of 50
3. Since the aforesaid two Writ Petitions arise out of a similar set of
facts and circumstances and seek substantially similar reliefs from this Court,
they are taken up together for adjudication by way of this common judgment.
For the sake of convenience, W.P.(C) No.6795 of 2025 is treated as the lead
matter.
FACTUAL MATRIX OF THE CASE
4. On a perusal of the aforesaid CRLMC petitions, the following
common factual matrix emerges; both petitioners were erstwhile Education
Volunteers who were engaged as Gana Sikshyaks in the District of
Sundargarh by the Collector-cum-Chairman, Sarba Siksha Abhiyan (SSA) &
Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad, Sundargarh in August of 2008, and
both of them joined service on 12.08.2008. Thereafter, both Petitioners
appeared in the Odisha Teacher Eligibility Test (OTET) conducted by the
Board of Secondary Education, Odisha pursuant to Government Notification
No.25290 dated 22.12.2016, which required Gana Sikshyaks to qualify the
OTET by 31.03.2019 in order to remain eligible for annual increments. Both
petitioners received their respective OTET Pass Certificates by post from the
Board of Secondary Education, Odisha through EMS Speed Post.
5. However, in August 2021, the District Project Coordinator,
Samagra Shiksha, Sundargarh issued a Show Cause notice dated 25.08.2021
to each of them, alleging that the OTET Certificates produced by them were
Page 3 of 50
fake. The Petitioners submitted their respective replies on 13.09.2021
denying the allegations. Thereafter, both Petitioners were removed from
service in September 2021. A criminal case was also instituted against both
on the basis of the self-same allegations, registered as Biramitrapur P.S. Case
No.179 of 2021, lodged by the Block Education Officer, Kuarmunda.
Subsequently, the case went to trial and the Petitioners were acquitted in the
said criminal case by virtue of the Judgment and Order dated 29.04.2024
passed by the learned C.J.-cum-Judicial Magistrate First Class, Biramitrapur,
Sundargarh in T.R. No.225 of 2024 arising out of G.R. Case No.1437 of
2021. Despite their acquittal in the criminal case initiated on self-same
allegations as the departmental action, and despite repeated orders of this
Hon’ble Court quashing the orders of removal issued against the Petitioners
and directing fresh consideration of their reinstatement claims guided by the
ratio of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Ram Lal v. State of Rajasthan and
others, reported in (2024) 1 SCC 175, the concerned Opposite Party-
authorities have persistently rejected the reinstatement claims of both the
Petitioners on the same grounds, compelling both petitioners to approach this
Hon’ble Court once again.
6. As has been clarified above, even though the present batch of writ
petitions arise out of similar factual matrix, however notwithstanding the
above common background facts, the two cases differ in the following
material particulars;
Page 4 of 50
a) The Petitioner in W.P.(C) No.6795 of 2025, Pragnya Paramita
Swain (hereinafter “the 1st Petitioner”), was initially engaged pursuant to
Order No.1847 dated 02.08.2008 (Annexure-1). Notably, prior to her
removal, she stood regularized as a Primary School Teacher Level-V (Ex-
Cadre) with effect from 01.03.2017 by virtue of Order No.125 dated
04.01.2018 (Annexure-2). Subsequently, she appeared in the OTET
examination held on 16.01.2019. However, the result thereof was
cancelled, requiring her to reappear on 07.08.2019, in which she claims to
have secured 92 marks (inclusive of grace marks awarded by the Board
on account of ambiguities in the question paper). Thereafter, she was
removed from service by the Block Education Officer, Kuarmunda, vide
order dated 21.09.2021 (Annexure-8). Assailing the said dismissal, the
Petitioner initially approached this Court in W.P.(C) No.31847 of 2021,
which was disposed of on 17.10.2022 granting her liberty to prefer an
appeal before the Director, Elementary Education, Odisha. Pursuant
thereto, the appeal preferred by the Petitioner was disposed of with a
direction to the Block Education Officer, Kuarmunda, to re-examine the
matter in accordance with the O.C.S. (CCA) Rules, 1962. The Petitioner
thereafter filed W.P.(C) No.15866 of 2023, which was disposed of on
17.05.2023 directing Opposite Party No.6 to decide her pending
representation. However, instead of undertaking a fresh consideration, the
Block Education Officer reaffirmed the earlier dismissal. In the
Page 5 of 50
interregnum, the Petitioner was acquitted in the criminal proceedings
instituted against her. She thereafter filed W.P.(C) No.14355 of 2024,
which was disposed of on 18.06.2024 by quashing the dismissal order and
directing reconsideration of her case in light of the dictum in Ram Lal
(supra). A contempt petition being CONTC No.6702 of 2024 was also
filed and disposed of on 28.01.2025 directing compliance within one
month. At present, the Petitioner has approached this Court assailing the
impugned order dated 13.02.2025 passed by the Block Education Officer,
Kuarmunda, whereby her claim for reinstatement has once again been
rejected on substantially identical grounds.
b) The petitioner in W.P.(C) No.12944 of 2025, Sandhyarani Pallauri
(hereinafter the “2nd Petitioner”), was engaged as Gana Sikshyak vide
Engagement Order No.1862 dated 08.08.2008, at Annexure-1 therein, and
was removed by the Collector-cum-Chief Executive Officer, Zilla
Parishad, Sundargarh vide Disengagement Order dated 16.09.2021. She
had appeared in OTET 2019 and claims to have secured 77 marks, which
was sufficient for her to qualify as an SEBC candidate (minimum passing
marks being 70). The present petition is the third round of litigation
involving the Petitioner before this Court. Earlier, relying on her acquittal
in the criminal case instituted on the self-same charges, the Petitioner
filed W.P.(C) No.17206 of 2024 which was disposed of on 24.07.2024 by
quashing the disengagement order and directing the Opposite Party to
Page 6 of 50
take a fresh decision on the Petitioner’s claim. However, pursuant thereto,
her representation was rejected. Aggrieved, she approached this Court
again via W.P.(C) No.24589 of 2024 which was disposed of on
21.01.2025, quashing the first rejection order of 07.08.2024 and directing
fresh decision in light of the order dated 07.01.2025 in W.P.(C) No.5345
of 2021 and batch. The impugned order in the present petition is the
rejection order dated 28.03.2025 and its revised version dated 18.06.2025,
at Annexure-12 and 12(a) respectively, passed by the Collector,
Sundargarh, who initiated a Misc. Case bearing No.16/2025 and again
rejected her claim vide the order dated 28.03.2025 on the same grounds.
COUNTER AFFIDAVIT filed by the OPPOSITE PARTY NO.5 and the
REJOINDER thereto filed by the PETITIONER
7. The principal grounds taken by Opposite Party No.5 (Block
Education Officer, Kuarmunda) in the Counter Affidavit filed in W.P.(C)
No.6795 of 2025, later adopted in W.P.(C) No.12944 of 2025, are as follows:
a. The condition No.10 in the engagement order No.1847 dated
02.08.2008, pursuant to an agreement dated 08.07.2008 with the
Collector-cum-Chairman, SSA and CEO, Zilla Parisad, Sundargarh,
wherein the Petitioner was engaged as Gana Shikhyaka, specifically
provided that the engagement would be cancelled if any fraudulent
testimonial was detected, and the person would be criminally prosecuted.
Page 7 of 50
b. The appointment order No.125 dated 04.01.2018 of the DEO,
Sundargarh, pursuant to Government Resolution No.14467/SME dated
25.07.2016 and Notification No.25290/SME dated 22.12.2016, wherein
the Petitioner was provisionally appointed as Level-V Asst. Teacher (Ex-
Cadre) w.e.f. 01.03.2017, carried the condition that the Petitioner had to
pass OTET by 31.03.2019 (failing which no further increment after
31.03.2018 would be given) and that the appointment would be
cancelled/terminated if any submitted testimonial was subsequently found
to be fraudulent.
c. The DEO-cum-DPC, Samagra Shiksha, Sundargarh vide letter
No.1946 dated 24.06.2021, intimated that allegations had been received
from different forums regarding submission of fake OTET certificates by
teachers, that such news had been published in newspapers, and directed
verification of the OTET certificates. Accordingly, the BEO, Kuarmunda
requested the Secretary, Board of Secondary Education, Odisha, Cuttack,
vide letter No.965/966 dated 29.06.2021, to verify the genuineness of the
OTET certificate produced by the Petitioner.
d. The Secretary, Board of Secondary Education, Odisha, Cuttack,
vide letter No.612 dated 13.08.2021, officially intimated that the photo
copy of the OTET certificate of the petitioner is false and fabricated, that
she has not qualified OTET-2019, and that the certificate is not genuine.
The Assistant Secretary, Board of Secondary Education, vide letter
Page 8 of 50
No.1189 dated 22.09.2021, further intimated the BEO that the certificate
produced by the petitioner does not tally with the Board’s records and
appears to be fake. Consequently, the Director, Elementary Education,
Odisha, Bhubaneswar vide letter No.12227 dated 29.07.2021 sent an
allegation petition against the petitioner and requested disengagement and
lodging of FIR.
e. Thereafter, a show cause notice was issued to the Petitioner vide
letter No.4101 dated 25.08.2021 and the BEO was directed to lodge FIR
vide letter No.4130 dated 27.08.2021. The Petitioner’s reply dated
13.09.2021 to the show-cause was received, examined and the petitioner
was dismissed from service vide order No.1564 dated 21.09.2021 of the
BEO, Kuarmunda.
f. Pursuant to the direction in W.P.(C) No.31847/2021, the Opposite
Party No.2 (Director, Elementary Education) rejected the Petitioner’s
appeal vide order No.414 dated 11.01.2023. The Petitioner filed another
appeal before the Director, who, vide letter No.7217 dated 27.03.2023,
directed the BEO to re-examine the matter under O.C.S. (CCA) Rules,
1962. Accordingly, a formal departmental proceeding was initiated vide
memorandum No.650 dated 10.04.2023 under Rule 15 of O.C.S. (CCA)
Rules, 1962. Such proceeding was disposed of vide order No.1275 dated
27.07.2023, which (a) censured the petitioner and (b) found her guilty of
violation of Govt. rules for submitting fake OTET certificate, holding that
Page 9 of 50
her continuance in service is illegal and sustaining the original order of
dismissal dated 21.09.2021.
g. Thereafter, the petitioner filed W.P.(C) No.14355 of 2024, which
was disposed of by this Court vide order dated 18.06.2024 by quashing
the order dated 27.07.2023 and directing a fresh decision by the BEO.
Pursuant thereto, the BEO considered the petitioner’s claim and rejected it
vide order No.325 dated 13.02.2025.
h. With regard to the applicability of Ram Lal v. State of Rajasthan
(Civil Appeal No.7935 of 2023) to the Petitioner’s case, it has been stated
that in Ram Lal (supra) the certificate’s genuineness remained
inconclusive, no issuing authority certified it as forged, and there was no
conclusive independent evidence of fraudulent intent. Hence, the
Supreme Court reinstated Ram Lal. In the present case however, the
OTET certificate has been officially verified and certified as fake by the
Board of Secondary Education, Odisha which is the very issuing
authority.
i. It has been stated that conviction in criminal proceedings requires
proof beyond reasonable doubt, but departmental proceedings only
require preponderance of probability. The Petitioner may have been
acquitted in the criminal court due to lack of direct evidence or
procedural lapses, but the confirmed fake certificate alone is sufficient to
prove misconduct under the departmental standard. The established fact
Page 10 of 50
of the fake certificate, combined with the petitioner’s knowledge that she
had not qualified OTET and that she checked her result on an unnamed
‘random website’, creates a preponderance of evidence of misconduct.
j. It has been argued that the present case is squarely covered by
Airports Authority of India Vrs. Pradip Kumar Banerjee (Civil Appeal
No.8414 of 2017 decided on 04.02.2025), where a confirmed fake
certificate forms the basis of dismissal, acquittal in the criminal court
does not erase the disciplinary violation, and submitting a confirmed fake
certificate is more serious and independently sufficient for dismissal
under Government Conduct Rules.
8. As a reply to the aforesaid Counter Affidavit, the Petitioner in
W.P.(C) No.6795 of 2025 has filed a Rejoinder Affidavit, advancing therein
the following arguments;
a. That the Petitioner was dismissed on 21.09.2021 without following
the procedure under O.C.S. (CCA) Rules, 1962. When Opp. Party No.2
pointed out the procedural lapses, Opp. Party No.5, without reinstating
the petitioner, conducted a fresh proceeding in a ‘novel manner’ and
confirmed dismissal on 27.07.2023 again without following O.C.S.
(CCA) Rules, 1962 or providing a copy of the ex-parte enquiry report.
b. Even though the Petitioner was acquitted in the criminal case on
29.04.2024 and the dismissal order dated 27.07.2023 was quashed by the
High Court on 18.06.2024 in W.P.(C) No.14355 of 2024 with directions
Page 11 of 50
to the Opposite Parties to consider reinstating her in light of Ram Lal
(supra), the Opposite Party No.5 again passed a dismissal order on
13.02.2025 against the Petitioner.
c. Challenging the OP No.5’s contention that condition No.10 of the
engagement order and the conditions in the regularization order of the
Petitioner to justifies her dismissal, the Petitioner has stated that the
OTET Rules were framed only in 2012 (Resolution No.14302 dated
04.06.2012), i.e., four years after the Petitioner’s engagement in 2008.
The OTET requirement was therefore a retrospective imposition.
d. The Petitioner possessed the requisite educational and training
qualifications when she became a regular teacher in 2017. She appeared
in OTET only for the purpose of getting annual increment. It has been
stated that the Petitioner that she first appeared in the examination on
16.01.2019, but that result was cancelled. She then appeared on
07.08.2019 and secured 92 marks. Pursuant thereto, she received the
OTET certificate at her home through EMS Speed Post
No.EO5401723081N, bearing the seal of the Board of Secondary
Education, Odisha (at Annexures 4 & 5). In fact, by scanning the bar-
code on the certificate, the result sheet was displayed on the Board’s
website showing the Petitioner had passed the examination with 92
marks, confirming the authenticity of the certificate on its face.
Page 12 of 50
e. Moreover, if the certificate was not genuine, it was the Petitioner
who was defrauded and should not be punished for the same. At most, she
could have been asked to re-appear in OTET examination.
f. Reference has been made to the admission by the Opposite Party
No.5 in the judgement dated 29.04.2024, wherein the Petitioner has been
acquitted in a criminal case instituted on self-same allegations, and it has
been stated that the Petitioner did not derive any appointment benefit or
financial benefit from the certificate. Even if the certificate were not
genuine, it cannot be a ground for termination since she was not
appointed on its basis and took no benefit from it. Therefore, the
termination is illegal and in gross violation of Natural Justice principles.
g. Again referring to the judgement of acquittal dated 29.04.2024, it
has been stated that the prosecution examined 14 witnesses in trial but
failed to prove the case against the Petitioner for commission of any
offence under Sections 465/471 IPC, and the trial Court has found the
petitioner as not guilty and has duly acquitted her. Therefore, the
Petitioner is entitled to reinstatement in service in light of the principle
laid down by the Supreme Court in catena of decisions. However, when
the Opposite Parties did not reinstate her after her acquittal, she filed
W.P.(C) No.14355 of 2024 and this Court on 18.06.2024 quashed the
order dated 27.07.2023 and remitted the matter to Opp. Party No.5 for
fresh decision in light of Ram Lal (supra).
Page 13 of 50
h. Despite this Court quashing the rejection order passed by Opp.
Party No.5 in prior writ petitions filed by the Petitioner, the Opposite
Parties have repeatedly passed the same order rejecting the Petitioner’s
case on identical grounds. The Petitioner argues that this reveals a pre-
conceived mind and malafide intention on the part of the Opposite
Parties.
CONTENTIONS OF THE PETITIONER
9. Heard Mr. Manoranjan Mohanty, learned Senior Advocate assisted
by Ms. Subhashree Mohanty, learned Advocate. Perused the written
submissions and the Rejoinder Affidavit. The learned senior counsel has put
forth the following contentions in favour of claims made by the two
Petitioners;
a) That both petitioners were erstwhile Education Volunteers who
were engaged as Gana Sikshyaks in the District of Sundargarh and joined
in service on 12.08.2008. Both the Petitioners possessed the requisite
qualifications, educational and otherwise, at the time of engagement and
continued to discharge their duties peacefully to the satisfaction of their
authorities for more than a decade without any allegation of professional
misconduct during such tenure.
b) It has been submitted that as per the Government Notification
No.25290 dated 22.12.2016, a copy of which is present at Annexure-3 to
Page 14 of 50
W.P.(C) No.6795 of 2025, Gana Sikshyaks were required to qualify the
OTET by 31.03.2019, failing which they would not be entitled to further
annual increments. In order to comply with this requirement, both
Petitioners appeared in the OTET examination conducted by the Board of
Secondary Education, Odisha, and received their respective OTET Pass
Certificates by post, from the Board, through EMS Speed Post. It is the
contention of the learned senior counsel that since the certificates were
dispatched to them directly by the official issuing authority, they had
absolutely no reason to doubt the genuineness of the certificates so
received. In fact, it was by scanning the bar-code provided in the
certificate that the Petitioners checked their result on the Board of
Secondary Education, Odisha website and found out that they have both
qualified the examination.
c) The learned senior counsel thereafter submitted that after the
allegation of submitting fake OTET certificate was levelled against the
Petitioners, a criminal case in the shape of Biramitrapur P.S. Case No.179
of 2021, was lodged against the Petitioners by the Block Education
Officer, Kuarmunda on the self-same charges of submitting a fake OTET
certificate. Once the case went to trial, the learned trial Court considered
all 14 prosecution witnesses and other documentary evidences produced
by the Prosecution, and vide Judgment and Order dated 29.04.2024
passed by the learned C.J.-cum-Judicial Magistrate First Class,
Page 15 of 50
Biramitrapur in T.R. No.225 of 2024 arising out of G.R. Case No.1437 of
2021 the trial Court has acquitted both the Petitioners. The learned senior
counsel, drawing attention of this Court to the concluding paragraphs of
the aforesaid judgement, stated that the Court below has unequivocally
observed that no incriminating material has been found against the
Petitioners, that not a single ingredient of the offences alleged against the
Petitioners has been proved, and that the prosecution has failed to prove
its case against the accused persons, i.e. the present Petitioners.
d) Again referring to the aforementioned judgement of acquittal dated
29.04.2024, the learned senior counsel submitted that the Petitioners were
neither appointed on the basis of the OTET certificate, nor have they
derived any benefit from such certificate. To corroborate his contentions,
the learned senior counsel referred to paragraph-6 of the judgement dated
29.04.2024, specifically the statement by one Sri Sadanand Pradhan, the
Block Education Officer, who is the P.W No.6 and the Informant, and
one Additional Block Education Officer, the P.W No.1, who have
categorically stated before the learned trial Court that in the year 2008,
i.e. at the time of initial appointment of the Petitioners as Gana Sikshyaks,
qualification in the OTET examination was not an eligibility criteria for
being appointed. The same P.W No.6 has also stated that non-submission
of such OTET certificate would not affect the service of the Petitioners,
that the Petitioners have not received any financial and professional
Page 16 of 50
benefit from such allegedly fake OTET certificate, and that no
departmental proceeding was initiated against the Petitioners prior to their
dismissal. Similarly, learned senior counsel, adverting to the testimony of
the P.W. No.2, submitted that the Petitioners have been in service since
2008 for more than a decade, maintaining an unblemished record, with no
allegation of any misconduct or any other adverse imputation ever having
been made against them.
e) Next, clarifying the facts leading up to the allegations of the
Petitioners submitting fake OTET certificates, the learned senior counsel
referred to paragraph-15 of the judgement of the trial court dated
29.04.2024 and stated before this Court that the entire case against the
Petitioners was instituted on the complaint received by one unconnected
person, an RTI activist namely Abhimanyu Barik. It was submitted that
the stranger-Abhimanyu Barik had made enquiries, through RTI, into the
OTET examination results of the Petitioners and prior to the receipt and
verification of the OTET certificate by the Board of Secondary
Education, the said Abhimanyu Barik had raised a complaint regarding
genuineness of the certificate. However, the aforesaid person has neither
been examined by the IO, nor was he arrayed by the prosecution as a
witness. Therefore, It was submitted that the very basis of the allegation
against the Petitioner is wholly unfounded.
Page 17 of 50
f) Next, the learned senior counsel contended that Show Cause
Notices were issued to both the Petitioners on 25.08.2021, to which the
Petitioners have submitted their replied on 13.09.2021 denying all
allegations. However, after receiving such reply, without following the
due procedure prescribed under the O.C.S. (CCA) Rules, 1962, without
issuing any charge sheet, without conducting any enquiry, without
examining or cross-examining the petitioners, and without giving them
any opportunity of being heard, the Petitioners were removed from their
service on 21.09.2021 (for the 1st Petitioner) and 16.09.2021 (for the 2nd
Petitioner) in gross violation of the principles of natural justice and
Article 14 of the Constitution of India.
g) To further corroborate his contentions, the learned senior counsel
has placed strong reliance on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court
in Ram Lal v. State of Rajasthan and others reported in (2024) 1 SCC
175, and contended that the Hon’ble Apex Court has categorically held
that where a person has been acquitted in a criminal case on the self-same
charges that formed the basis of a departmental punishment, the order of
dismissal/disengagement is liable to be set aside and the person is entitled
to reinstatement. Learned senior counsel submits that that the cases of
both the petitioners are squarely covered by the ratio laid down in Ram
Lal‘s case (supra), as the charges resulting in the departmental action of
Page 18 of 50
removal from service and the criminal proceeding were identical and that
the Petitioners have been acquitted by the trial Court.
h) Additionally, the learned senior counsel contended that this Court,
having already quashed their respective removal orders in the prior
petitions filed by the Petitioners, had directed the concerned authorities to
take fresh decisions on their reinstatement claims keeping in mind the
ratio in Ram Lal (supra). Despite multiple such orders by this Court on
previous occasions, the Opposite Party-authorities have persisted in
rejecting their claims on the same grounds, thereby acting in a
contumacious and arbitrary manner that indicates malafide intentions.
Lastly, it has been submitted that in the meantime the Petitioners have
both once again appeared in and qualified the OTET Examination.
10. In addition to the common contentions above, the following
arguments have been advanced specifically with regard to the Petitioner in
W.P.(C) No.6795/2025;
a) Significantly, by the time of her removal, the Petitioner had already
been regularized as a Primary School Teacher Level-V (Ex-Cadre) with
effect from 01.03.2017, i.e. after completion of eight years of service as
Gana Sikshyak, under Order No.125 dated 04.01.2018 of the District
Education Officer, Sundargarh, at Annexure-2. She was therefore a
regular Government employee at the time of her dismissal which makes
Page 19 of 50
the breach of procedural safeguards under the O.C.S. (CCA) Rules, 1962
all the more egregious.
b) The Petitioner also refers to the protracted history of non-
compliance by the Block Education Officer, Kuarmunda, who despite the
directions of the Director of Elementary Education dated 27.03.2023 to
re-examine the matter under the O.C.S. (CCA) Rules, 1962, passed an
order dated 27.07.2023 upholding the original dismissal without issuing
any charge sheet, without conducting any fresh inquiry, and without
serving any notice on the petitioner, thereby persisting in the non-
adherence to the established procedure.
11. Likewise, with regard to the 2nd Petitioner, i.e. the Petitioner in
W.P.(C) No.12944 of 2025, it has been submitted that;
a) As a Gana Sikshyak who had completed more than thirteen years
of service, she was fully eligible to be regularized as an Elementary
Level-V Teacher in terms of Govt. Notification dated 22.12.2016. She
prays not only for reinstatement but also for regularization as Elementary
Level-V Teacher from the date of her eligibility in terms of the said
Notification.
b) The petitioner specifically highlights the conduct of the Collector,
Sundargarh (Opp. Party No.3) who, instead of complying with the order
of this Hon’ble Court dated 21.01.2025 passed in W.P.(C) No.24589/2024
directing reinstatement, took the impermissible step of initiating a Misc.
Page 20 of 50
Case No.16/2025, passing a fresh rejection order dated 28.03.2025, at
Annexure-12, and directing the DEO to file a Writ Appeal against this
Court’s own order, thereby arrogating to himself an appellate authority
over the High Court, which is wholly impermissible. Even the revised
order dated 18.06.2025, at Annexure-12(a), passed pursuant to the
observation of this Hon’ble Court is, in substance, the same rejection
order with only the last portion deleted, and with no notice given to the
petitioner. It was submitted that this conduct flies in the face of explicit
direction by this Court and calls for intervention.
CONTENTIONS OF THE STATE-OPPOSITE PARTY
12. Heard Mr. U. C. Jena, learned Additional Standing Counsel for the
State, perused the Counter Affidavit filed by the Opposite Party No.5-Block
Education Officer, Kuarmunda in W.P.(C) No.6795 of 2025, later adopted in
W.P.(C) No.12944 of 2025. The Opposite Party-State has opposed the
Petitioners’ stance by advancing the following arguments;
a) The learned Additional Standing Counsel, at the outset, submitted
that in both matters the OTET pass Certificates produced by the
respective petitioners were verified by the Secretary, Board of Secondary
Education, Odisha and found to be false, fabricated, and not genuine. In
the case of the 1st Petitioner (W.P.(C) No.6795/2025), the Board vide its
letter No.612 dated 13.08.2021 officially certified that the OTET
Page 21 of 50
certificate produced by the her was false and fabricated, and that she had
not qualified OTET-2019. A similar certification was also made in the
case of the 2nd Petitioner (W.P.(C) No.12944/2025). The learned ASC
further submitted that only after considering the show-cause replies
submitted by the Petitioners, and after examining the cases of the
Petitioners thoroughly, the DEO-cum-DPC, SS, Sundargarh vide his
order dated 16.09.2021 (in W.P.(C) No.12944/2025), and the BEO,
Kuarmenda vide the order dated 21.09.2021 (W.P.(C) No.6795/2025)
have disengaged the Petitioners from service.
b) The learned ASC, at this point referred to the engagement orders
dated 02.08.2008 and 08.08.2008, wherein both the Petitioners were
appointed as Gana Sikhyakas, and contended that one of the condition of
appointment, condition No.10, was that their engagements would be
cancelled if any fraudulent testimonial is detected in future, and criminal
prosecution would follow
c) Further, the learned ASC submitted that that the standard of proof
in criminal proceedings, i.e. proof beyond reasonable doubt, is materially
different from and higher than the standard applicable in departmental
proceedings, where preponderance of probability suffices. It was
submitted that forgery of the OTET pass certificate is an independent and
conclusive basis for disciplinary action, wholly separate from the criminal
proceedings, and that such confirmed documentary falsification of the
Page 22 of 50
certificate is sufficient to sustain dismissal under the preponderance of
probability standard applicable in disciplinary proceedings.
d) Referring to the judgement of acquittal dated 29.04.2024, the
learned ASC submitted that Petitioners’ acquittal in the criminal Court
was due to the failure on the part of the Prosecution to prove the
Petitioners’ knowledge of the certificate’s falsity beyond reasonable
doubt. As has been contended previously, such standard is not applicable
to departmental proceedings. The learned ASC contended that the
confirmed fact that the certificate was fake, combined with the fact that
the Petitioners submitted the fake certificates for obtaining service
benefits while fully knowing that they had not appeared in or passed the
OTET examination, constitutes sufficient misconduct in a departmental
context even if not provable to criminal standards.
e) The State argued that the ratio of Ram Lal‘s case (supra) is not
applicable to the case of the Petitioners. It was argued that in Ram Lal
(supra), the genuineness of the certificate in question remained
inconclusive, i.e. no issuing authority had certified it as forged, and there
was no conclusive independent evidence of fraudulent intent. Therefore,
the Supreme Court reinstated Ram Lal on the basis that the acquittal,
combined with the absence of independent evidence of forgery in the
departmental proceedings which left no material to sustain the dismissal.
By contrast, in the present batch of writ petitions the OTET certificates
Page 23 of 50
have been officially verified and certified as fake by the Board of
Secondary Education, Odisha, which is also the very authority that issues
such certificates. This constitutes independent and conclusive evidence of
the forgery of the certificates in question that was absent in Ram Lal’s
case (supra).
f) To corroborate his arguments further, the learned ASC relied on
the dictum of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Airports Authority of India
v. Pradip Kumar Banerjee (Civil Appeal No.8414 of 2017, decided on
04.02.2025), and submitted that the ratio in this case squarely applies to
the facts at hand, where a confirmed fake certificate forms the basis of
dismissal, and that the acquittal in the criminal court does not erase the
disciplinary violation when the document’s falsity has been officially and
independently confirmed by the Board of Secondary Education, Odisha.
g) Furthermore, with regard to the claim of the Petitioners that they
had no knowledge of the certificates being fake, the learned ASC posits
that such contention is not credible since neither of the Petitioners
provided the EMS Speed Post registration number details through which
they claimed to have received the certificate, and the Petitioner in
W.P.(C) No.6795/2025 also claimed to have verified her result on a
“random website” without providing its domain name. These omissions,
the State argued, cast serious doubt on the Petitioners’ version of events.
It is further argued that the Petitioners, knowing fully well that they had
Page 24 of 50
not qualified the OTET examination, submitted fabricated certificates to
obtain service benefits which clearly constitute an intent to deceive. The
learned ASC further submitted that the nature of the misconduct, i.e.
submitting a confirmed fake certificate, goes to the root of integrity and
trustworthiness of a government servant and is sufficient for dismissal
under the Service Conduct Rules, regardless of the outcome of the
criminal proceedings. It was stated that the acquittal in the criminal court
does not and cannot erase this disciplinary violation.
13. Apart from the aforesaid common heads of arguments advanced by
the State-Opposite Party against the two Petitioners in the present batch of
writ petitions, the learned ASC has also made the following contentions
specifically with regard to the 1st Petitioner (i.e. the Petitioner in W.P.(C)
No.6795 of 2025);
a) Alluding to the provisional appointment of the Petitioner as Level-
V Assistant Teacher (Ex-Cadre) w.e.f 01.03.2017 vide the order dated
04.01.2018, the learned ASC submitted that the regularization order dated
04.01.2018 also contained a condition that the appointment would be
cancelled or terminated if any submitted testimonial is subsequently
found to be fraudulent. Therefore, the Petitioner’s dismissal is in
accordance with the express terms of her own engagement and
regularization.
Page 25 of 50
b) Moreover, the learned ASC also submitted that a formal
departmental proceeding was initiated against the petitioner vide
Memorandum No.650 dated 10.04.2023 under Rule 15 of the O.C.S.
(CCA) Rules, 1962, with charges of gross misconduct, violation of
Government guidelines, misappropriation of Government money,
dereliction of duty, and violation of Government Servant Conduct Rules.
The departmental proceeding concluded with the order dated 27.07.2023,
which censured the petitioner, found her guilty of violation of
Government rules by submitting a fake OTET pass certificate thereby
proving misconduct and doubtful integrity as a Government servant, and
sustained the original order of dismissal dated 21.09.2021.
14. Likewise, particularly with regard to the Petitioner in W.P.(C)
No.12944 of 2025, the learned ASC contended that at present, a Writ Appeal
has been filed before this Court bearing D-W.A. No.20822 of 2022, against
the order dated 07.01.2025 passed by this Court in W.P.(C) No.5345 of 2021.
Apart from that, the Government in School and Mass Education Department,
has taken steps to file writ appeal against order dated 21.01.2025 passed in
W.P.(C) No.24589 of 2024, wherein this Court had disposed of the said Writ
Petition in terms of the order dated 07.01.2025 in W.P.(C) No.5345 of 2021
and quashed the rejection order dated 07.08.2024.
Page 26 of 50
15. In light of the above contentions, the learned ASC for the State-
Opposite Party submitted that the present batch of Writ Petitions is wholly
devoid of any merit and, as such, is liable to be dismissed forthwith.
ANALYSIS OF THE COURT
16. The present batch of Writ Petitions have both been filed by
Petitioners who, after being engaged as Gana Sikhyaks in 2008, have been
disengaged from their service on the allegation that they have produced fake
OTET pass certificates to obtain service benefits. Since the questions of fact
and law arising in both the petitions are inextricably intertwined, they were
heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment.
17. It is the Petitioners’ immutable stance that they have received their
OTET pass certificates in post, from the Board of Secondary Education itself
and, as such, they have had no occasion to tamper with the certificates.
Moreover, the Petitioners maintain that the actual OTET pass certificate is in
no way relevant for the purpose of their service and that they have been
disengaged from their posts without following the due procedure laid down in
the O.C.S. (CCA) Rules, 1962, which renders their disengagement wholly
illegal. Naturally, the Opposite Party-State posits that the disengagement of
the Petitioner is not only legal but also justified since the Petitioners have
knowingly produced OTET pass certificates that have been verified by the
Board of Secondary Education, Odisha as fake. The Opposite Party-State
Page 27 of 50
maintains that the engagement orders of the Petitioners clearly stipulated that
they shall be disengaged from service and a criminal proceeding initiated
against them in the event the Petitioners ever submit any fraudulent
testimonials. It is in the aforesaid background that the Petitioners have
approached this Court with the prayer set-out hereinabove. It is pertinent to
clarify at the outset that the present batch of writ petitions is not the first
approach of the Petitioners to this forum. Both Petitioners have been
constrained to litigate their reinstatement claims through multiple rounds of
writ proceedings before this Court, the detailed history of which is
recapitulated separately below.
18. On a bare perusal of the respective impugned disengagement
orders, it can be seen that the primary reason for rejecting the Petitioners’
prayer for reinstatement is that the OTET pass certificates produced by them
has been held to be fake, and that the ratio laid down in Ram Lal (supra) has
been held to be not applicable to the case of the Petitioners since they stand is
on a “completely different” footing. Moreover, although the impugned orders
mention the fact of acquittal of the Petitioners in the criminal case instituted
on self-same allegations, however such a fact has not been taken into
consideration while making the final decision. Therefore, this Court is
required to examine whether the initial dismissal of the Petitioners, which the
subsequent impugned order supplements, was vitiated by non-compliance
with the prescribed procedure under the O.C.S. (CCA) Rules, 1962 and
Page 28 of 50
whether the merits of the acquittal in the criminal proceedings, read together
with the dictum in Ram Lal (supra), entitle the Petitioners to reinstatement.
19. It is undisputed that in both cases the Petitioners were
removed/dismissed from service in September 2021 without the issuance of
any formal charge-sheet, without the constitution of any inquiry committee,
without conducting any departmental proceeding, and without affording
either Petitioner any meaningful opportunity of being heard or to present their
case before the competent authority. Further, it is evident that the show-cause
notices that were issued to the Petitioners on 25.08.2021, were replied to by
the Petitioners on 13.09.2021, wherein they have denied all the allegations
levelled against them. However, within a week, the Opposite Parties
proceeded to dismiss the Petitioners from service without undertaking any
further inquiry. Although the Opposite Party-State has contended that due
procedure under the O.C.S. (CCA) Rules, 1962 was followed, no material has
been placed on record to demonstrate that any inquiry committee was
constituted or that the Petitioners were afforded an opportunity of hearing in
accordance with law.
20. So far as the infliction of a major penalty (dismissal or removal
from service) is concerned, the O.C.S. (CCA) Rules, 1962 prescribes a
detailed procedure that is to be mandatorily followed. Rule 15 of the said
Rules requires the initiation of a formal inquiry by the appointment of an
Inquiring Authority, the delivery of a charge sheet, the statement of
Page 29 of 50
imputations, and the list of documents and witnesses relied upon by the
disciplinary authority. Moreover, a copy of such report must be furnished to
the Government servant, and he must be afforded an opportunity to make his
representation thereon before the disciplinary authority passes any order
imposing a major penalty. The breach of any of these steps vitiates the entire
disciplinary proceeding. In State of Orissa v. Dr. (Miss) Binapani Dei,
reported in AIR 1967 SC 1269, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that the right
to be heard before an adverse civil consequence is imposed is not merely a
statutory requirement but flows from the fundamental principles of natural
justice. Likewise, it must be borne in mind that Article 21, as expansively
interpreted by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Maneka Gandhi v. Union of
India, reported in (1978) 1 SCC 248, incorporates within its fold the
requirement that any State action affecting civil consequences must conform
to a fair, just and reasonable procedure. In the sphere of disciplinary
proceedings, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Managing Director, ECIL v. B.
Karunakar, reported in (1993) 4 SCC 727 and Union of India v.
Mohammad Ramzan Khan, reported in (1991) 1 SCC 588 held that
furnishing a copy of the inquiry report to the delinquent employee before the
disciplinary authority records its conclusions on punishment constitutes an
essential facet of the reasonable opportunity contemplated under Article
311(2) of the Constitution. The Court further clarified in B. Karunakar
(supra) that non-supply of the inquiry report amounts to a breach of
Page 30 of 50
principles of natural justice, though the ultimate order would be liable to be
set aside where such denial has caused prejudice to the delinquent employee.
Further, in Roop Singh Negi v. Punjab National Bank, reported in (2009) 2
SCC 570, the Hon’ble Supreme Court reiterated that disciplinary findings
must rest upon legally admissible evidence and adherence to fair procedure,
and cannot be sustained on mere suspicion or unproved allegations.
21. In the present cases, none of these steps were followed before the
original removal/dismissal in September 2021. No charge sheet was ever
issued nor was any Inquiring Authority ever appointed or any representation
invited from the Petitioners. In fact, in W.P.(C) No.6795 of 2025 the
Opposite Party No.2 has issued a specific direction, vide the letter dated
27.03.2023 at Annexure-11 therein, to the Opposite Party No.5 (in W.P.(C)
No.6795 of 2025) to institute a proper Disciplinary Proceeding as per the
O.C.S. (CCA) Rules, 1962. However, there is nothing on record to suggest
that the same was carried out.
22. At this point, reference may be had to the counter affidavit by the
Opposite Parties No.5 who has stated that a disciplinary proceeding was
indeed instituted against the Petitioner on 10.04.2023, and culminated on
27.07.2023 in her dismissal. At annexure-L/5 to the Counter, there is a
memorandum of the charges, article of the charges, statement of imputation
of misconduct, and a memo of evidence issued to the 1st Petitioner. Such
order dated 27.07.2023, at Annexure-12 to the W.P.(C) No.6795 of 2025,
Page 31 of 50
reveals that after consideration of the enquiry report dated 25.07.2023 and the
representation of the 1st Petitioner, the BEO, Kuarmunda has sustained the
initial order of dismissal dated 21.09.2021, which, as has been established
herein, was passed illegally without following the due procedure. It is also
pertinent to mention herein that the aforesaid order dated 27.07.2023 of the
BEO, Kuarmunda has been set-aside by the order dated 18.06.2024 of a
Coordinate Bench of this Court in W.P.(C) No.14355 of 2024, with a
direction to reconsider the Petitioner’s claim of reinstatement afresh in light
of Ram Lal’s dictum (supra). Pursuant to such direction of the learned
Coordinate Bench, the Opposite Parties have again rejected the claim of the
Petitioner vide the impugned order dated 13.02.2025, which is the subject
matter of the present writ petition. The sum and substance which emerges
from the foregoing is that the initial dismissal of the Petitioner in September
2021 was, as established above, plainly illegal for non-compliance with the
mandatory procedure under the O.C.S. (CCA) Rules, 1962. Such illegality
was sought to be cured by a subsequent disciplinary proceeding, culminating
in the order dated 27.07.2023, which sustained the original dismissal.
However, the said order dated 27.07.2023 has itself been set aside by a
Coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 18.06.2024. Therefore, the
impugned rejection order dated 13.02.2025, passed pursuant to the order
dated 18.06.2024 of the learned Coordinate Bench, is premised upon a legally
non-existent foundation.
Page 32 of 50
23. Specifically, regarding the 2nd Petitioner [W.P.(C) No.12944 of
2025], who remained a contractual Gana Sikshyak without having been
regularised prior to her removal, in contradistinction to the 1st Petitioner,
who had been regularised as a Primary School Teacher Level-V (Ex-Cadre)
prior to her dismissal, this Court deems it pertinent to clarify that her non-
regularised contractual status does not, by itself, deprive her of procedural
protection where the order of removal is stigmatic and punitive in character.
It is well-settled that Article 311(2) of the Constitution, in terms, applies to
persons holding civil posts under the State, and its direct invocation in the
case of a contractual employee may depend on the peculiar facts of a case.
However, the principles underlying Article 311(2), that an employee against
whom a finding of misconduct is arrived at must be given notice of the
charges and a reasonable opportunity to defend herself, flow not merely from
that provision alone but from the broader constitutional guarantee of fairness
under Articles 14 and 16, and from the common law principles of natural
justice. These protections cannot be defeated simply by the label of
“contractual” employment, once the substance of the impugned action is
punitive. The foundational principle in this regard was laid down by the
Hon’ble Supreme Court in the Hon’ble Supreme Court’s dictum in
Parshotam Lal Dhingra v. Union of India, reported in 1957 SCC OnLine
SC 5, wherein it was held, at paragraph 28, that even if the Government has,
by contract or under the rules, the right to terminate the employment without
Page 33 of 50
going through the procedure prescribed for inflicting the punishment of
dismissal or removal or reduction in rank, the Government may, nevertheless,
choose to punish the servant and if the termination of service is sought to be
founded on misconduct, negligence, inefficiency or other disqualification,
then it is a punishment and the requirements of Article 311 must be complied
with. This broader application of the principle was confirmed by the Hon’ble
Supreme Court in Swati Priyadarshini v. The State of Madhya Pradesh &
Ors., reported in 2024 INSC 620, wherein a contractual employee under the
Sarva Sikhysa Abhiyan was stigmatically terminated and the Hon’ble Apex
Court upheld the decision of the learned Single Judge who had observed that
termination of the service of the employee sans regular enquiry is illegal in
law. Similarly, in U.P. State Road Transport Corporation & Ors. v. Brijesh
Kumar & Anr., reported in 2024 INSC 638, the Hon’ble Supreme Court, in
paragraph 19, observed that a stigmatic order of termination of contractual
service cannot be passed without following the principles of Natural Justice,
thereby reiterating that the procedural obligation to conduct a fair enquiry
before stigmatically terminating an employee attaches to the character of the
action, and is not displaced by the contractual nature of the employment.
In the case of the 2nd Petitioner, her removal was expressly and
exclusively premised upon the allegation that she had submitted a fake OTET
certificate, i.e. a charge of misconduct going directly to her integrity as a
public servant. The disengagement order is, therefore, plainly stigmatic and
Page 34 of 50
punitive in character, regardless of its form or label. Accordingly, the O.C.S.
(CCA) Rules, 1962 ought to have been followed in her case as well, and the
failure to do so constitutes a violation that is common to both the Petitioners.
Thus, the initial dismissal of the Petitioners in September 2021 is vitiated by
patent illegality and non-compliance with the prescribed procedure.
24. At this juncture, this Court considers it apposite to briefly
recapitulate the litigation history culminating in the present batch of writ
petitions. So far as the 1st Petitioner is concerned, the present proceeding
marks her fourth approach before this Court. Her first writ petition, W.P.(C)
No.31847 of 2021, was disposed of with a direction to avail the appellate
remedy before the Director, Elementary Education, Odisha. Pursuant thereto,
the Director, vide communication dated 27.03.2023, directed the Block
Education Officer, Kuarmunda, to re-examine the matter in accordance with
the provisions of the O.C.S. (CCA) Rules, 1962. However, instead of
undertaking such reconsideration in its true spirit, the Block Education
Officer merely reaffirmed the original order of dismissal vide order dated
27.07.2023. The 1st Petitioner was consequently constrained to institute
W.P.(C) No.14355 of 2024, wherein this Court, vide order dated 18.06.2024,
quashed the said order dated 27.07.2023 and expressly directed the Opposite
Parties to take a fresh decision guided by the ratio laid down in Ram Lal
(supra). Even thereafter, since there was no compliance, the Petitioner filed
CONTC No.6702 of 2024, which came to be disposed of on 28.01.2025 with
Page 35 of 50
a further direction to record compliance within one month. Despite the
aforesaid sequence of orders, the BEO, Kuarmunda, by the impugned order
dated 13.02.2025, once again rejected the Petitioner’s claim on grounds
substantially identical to those already disapproved by this Court.
25. The litigation trajectory of the 2nd Petitioner is much too similar.
Upon this Court directing, in W.P.(C) No.17206 of 2024, that a fresh decision
be taken in light of her acquittal in the criminal proceeding, the concerned
Opposite Party rejected her representation afresh, thereby necessitating the
institution of W.P.(C) No.24589 of 2024. This Court, vide order dated
21.01.2025, again quashed the rejection order and directed reconsideration in
light of the order dated 07.01.2025 passed in W.P.(C) No.5345 of 2021.
However, instead of implementing the aforesaid directions, the Collector-
cum-Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad, Sundargarh, initiated Misc.
Case No.16 of 2025 before himself and proceeded to pass yet another
rejection order dated 28.03.2025, in effect assuming unto himself the role of
an appellate authority over the orders of this Court. The said authority further
directed the District Education Officer to prefer a Writ Appeal against this
Court’s order. The revised order dated 18.06.2025 that followed is, in
substance, merely a reiteration of the earlier rejection order, with only the
concluding portion directing the filing of an appeal against this Court’s order
having been deleted. Moreover, the revised order itself came to be passed
Page 36 of 50
without issuance of notice to the Petitioner and thus stands independently
vitiated for breach of the principles of natural justice.
26. In view of the aforesaid litigation history, this Court is constrained
to observe that the conduct of the Opposite Parties, viewed cumulatively,
discloses a deliberate and sustained pattern of non-compliance with judicial
directions. On each occasion that this Court has interfered with the rejection
orders and directed a fresh consideration, the authorities concerned have
merely returned with another order founded upon the same or substantially
similar grounds, effecting only cosmetic alterations while leaving the
substance of the decision entirely untouched. Such conduct, in the considered
view of this Court, amounts to a conscious disregard of the constitutional
authority vested in this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
As such, the impugned orders are, apart from all other infirmities discussed
herein, liable to be set aside on the ground that they have been passed in
conscious and deliberate non-compliance with the binding directions issued
by this Court in the earlier writ proceedings, seemingly guided by a pre-
determined intent to deny the Petitioners the reliefs to which they appear
entitled to.
27. So far as the genuineness of the OTET certificate is concerned, the
State-Opposite Party submitted that the certificates have been verified as fake
by the Board of Secondary Education. In this regard, the Opposite Parties
have referred to the notification dated 13.08.2021 of the Secretary, Board of
Page 37 of 50
Secondary Education wherein the photocopies of the OTET certificates
produced by the Petitioners have been held to be false and fabricated.
However, the Petitioners have fought back with the contention that in the
criminal proceeding instituted against them on the self-same allegations, the
trial Court has acquitted the Petitioners since the Opposite Parties were
unable to prove their case. It is clear from the record that a criminal trial was
initiated against the Petitioners in T.R. No.225 of 2024 arising out of G.R.
Case No.1437 of 2021 on the self-same charges as the departmental action
taken against the Petitioners. In the said criminal trial, the Prosecution
introduced fourteen witnesses and upon examination of such Prosecution
witnesses the trial Court found no incriminating material against either of the
Petitioners to establish the commission of offences under Sections 465 and
471 of the IPC. On an examination of the said judgement dated 29.04.2024, it
transpires that the P.W No.6, i.e. the Block Education Officer, Kuarmunda
has admitted that Petitioners have not drawn any increment or any service
benefit on the basis of the impugned OTET certificate. The BEO, Kuarmunda
has also admitted that it is a standard practice for certificates of public
examinations to be dispatched to candidates through postal channels, and that
a candidate who receives such a certificate by post from the official issuing
authority cannot reasonably be expected to doubt its authenticity. The BEO,
Kuarmunda (P.W. No.6) and the P.W No.1 (Additional Block Education
Officer) have both also stated that the OTET certificate was not a necessary
Page 38 of 50
criterion for appointment in 2008. While acquitting the Petitioners, the
learned Court below has observed that the prosecution have been unable to
introduce any incriminating material against the Petitioners, and has failed to
establish the case against the Petitioners under sections 465/471 of the IPC.
28. Therefore, it is clear that in the criminal proceeding on the self-
same allegations, the Opposite Parties were unable to show conclusively that
the Petitioners had forged the OTET certificates. Although the notification
issued by the Board on 13.08.2021 prima facie suggests that the photocopies
of the OTET certificates submitted by the Petitioners were inconsistent with
the records maintained by the Board, the said notification merely points
towards the existence of forgery and does not, ipso facto, establish the
Petitioners’ involvement, complicity, or conscious knowledge thereof. More
importantly, since it stands established that the certificates were received
through official EMS postal channels directly from the issuing authority,
which, as admitted by the Block Education Officer (P.W. No.6), is the
standard practice and absolves the candidate receiving such a certificate by
such means from reasonably doubting the certificate’s authenticity, it cannot
be safely concluded that the Petitioners had knowingly forged and utilised the
said certificates.
29. While it is settled law that a mere acquittal in a criminal court will
not, by itself, confer on the employee a right to reinstatement or any other
service benefit (see Deputy Inspector General of Police and Anr. v. S.
Page 39 of 50
Samuthiram, reported in (2013) 1 SCC 598), the position changes materially
when the charges in both the departmental proceeding and the criminal
proceeding are identical in nature, and the evidence, witnesses, and
circumstances are the same or substantially overlapping [see para 12 of Ram
Lal (supra); paragraphs 13 and 22 of M. Paul Anthony v. Bharat Gold
Mines Ltd., reported in (1999) 3 SCC 679; and G.M. Tank v. State of
Gujarat, reported in (2006) 5 SCC 446]. In this context, the Petitioners have
relied on the dictum of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Ram Lal v. State of
Rajasthan, bearing (2024) 1 SCC 175. On a perusal of the aforesaid
judgement, this Court finds that the facts in Ram Lal bear a close resemblance
to the facts in the present case. In the specific facts of Ram Lal (supra), the
Supreme Court found that the criminal court had not merely afforded the
benefit of doubt, instead it had examined the original school mark-sheet, the
prosecution witnesses and positively found that the date of birth recorded
therein was the date Ram Lal had claimed, and that there was no correction or
manipulation. In other words, the charge that Ram Lal had altered his date of
birth was found to have been not merely unproven but demonstrably false on
the evidence. Having regard to this finding, the Hon’ble Supreme Court set
aside the dismissal and directed his reinstatement with consequential benefits.
In the present case also, the learned trial Court after examining fourteen
prosecution witnesses including the very informant, returned a positive
finding of no incriminating material against the Petitioners. Similar to Ram
Page 40 of 50
Lal‘s case (supra), the learned Court below in the present case has
comprehensively held that the Prosecution has failed to establish the case
against the Petitioners. Significantly, the informant in the case, the P.W.6-
Block Education Officer, has admitted on oath that the Petitioners have not
actually derived any service benefit from the certificates, that the certificates
were received by them through official postal channels, and that he had not
noticed any misconduct on their part during their entire service tenure. Ergo,
it can very well be observed that the Petitioners were acquitted by the trial
Court not on a mere benefit of doubt or procedural lapse, but on merits, after
a thorough examination of all the evidence which the Prosecution produced
in an attempt to prove that the Petitioners had forged such certificate.
30. In a similar vein, the judgement dated 24.03.2023 of this Court in
Smt. Nirmala Sahoo v. State of Odisha & Ors., bearing W.P.(C) No.25947
of 2022 may also be relied on. The Petitioner in the said case had been
disengaged from her post, without following the due procedure, upon an
allegation of being involved in an offence under the Prevention of Corruption
Act, 1988. Subsequently, the Petitioner appeared in the trial and was
acquitted therein. Despite such acquittal however, the Opposite Parties
therein rejected the application of the Petitioner for regularisation. This
Court, on a thorough examination of the subject matter observed that the only
allegation against the petitioner-Nirmala Sahoo was her involvement in the
vigilance case, and the prosecution having failed to prove the charges, the
Page 41 of 50
allegation was found to be false, and, as a result, the disengagement order
could not be sustained. It was also held therein that the Petitioner’s acquittal
in the criminal proceeding was on merits and not on a mere technicality.
Also, given the fact that there was no material on record which would raise
any doubt on the integrity of the Petitioner-Nirmala Sahoo, and since the
criminal court has returned a clear verdict of acquittal on merits, it would not
be open to the employer to substitute its subjective assessment of integrity in
place of the considered judicial verdict of a competent criminal court.
31. As a counter-argument, the State-Opposite Party has placed strong
reliance on the recent judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Airports
Authority of India v. Pradip Kumar Banerjee, bearing Civil Appeal No.8414
of 2017, decided on 04.02.2025. The State has argued that the aforesaid case
clearly establishes that a criminal acquittal, particularly one on benefit of
doubt, does not automatically entail reinstatement, that departmental
proceedings are independent of criminal proceedings, and that the standard of
proof in disciplinary proceedings is preponderance of probability and not
proof beyond reasonable doubt. This Court does not dispute the general
propositions of law stated in Airports Authority of India (supra) since the
principles enumerated therein are well-settled principles that have been
consistently reiterated in the corpus of service law jurisprudence. The
principle that departmental proceedings and criminal proceedings can co-
Page 42 of 50
exist and that the result of one does not automatically determine the result of
the other is unimpeachable as a statement of law.
32. However, the application of Airports Authority of India (supra) to
the facts of the present cases is wholly misplaced, for reasons that are both
factual and doctrinal. Firstly, the respondent in the aforesaid case was
charged with demanding and accepting bribe, which is a grave misconduct
going to the heart of public service integrity. The criminal acquittal in that
case was specifically found by the Supreme Court to have been granted on
benefit of doubt due to insufficient evidence rather than on a positive finding
that the alleged misconduct had not occurred. On a contrary, the present case
involves allegation of forging a certificate which, as per the informant’s own
admission, has not extended any service benefits to the Petitioners. Secondly,
in Airports Authority of India (supra), a full departmental inquiry was held
with all prescribed procedural steps followed and the disciplinary authority
reached its findings on the basis of an objective evaluation of the evidence
primarily relying upon the testimony of the Trap Laying Officer, which was
substantially corroborated by other departmental witnesses. The Hon’ble
Supreme Court found no procedural infirmity in such departmental inquiry
and no material illegality in the findings. The situation in the present matter is
the diametric opposite since the original dismissal of the Petitioners in
September 2021 was, as has been discussed hereinabove, without any formal
departmental inquiry. Thirdly, the Hon’ble Supreme Court specifically
Page 43 of 50
observed that, in an intra-court appeal, a Division Bench may interfere with
the judgment of a learned Single Judge only where such judgment is perverse
or suffers from an apparent error of law. Since the Division Bench, in that
case, did not record any such finding and instead proceeded to re-appreciate
the evidence while reversing the decision of the learned Single Judge, the
Hon’ble Supreme Court set aside the impugned judgment of the Division
Bench. The factual and legal matrix of the present case stands on an entirely
different footing and, therefore, the aforesaid reasoning has no application
herein.
33. Ergo, this Court is of the view that that in the present context, the
reliance on Airports Authority of India (supra) and Ram Lal (supra) must be
contextualised correctly. The common principle that emerges from a reading
of both judgments is that the court must examine the substance of the
criminal acquittal, not merely its formal label. Airports Authority of India
(supra) establishes that an acquittal granted on benefit of doubt, where the
prosecution merely failed to meet the higher criminal standard, does not
automatically confer a right to reinstatement. Ram Lal (supra), on the other
hand, establishes that where an acquittal effectively disproves the charge on
the merits, as opposed to merely failing to prove it, the court in judicial
review is warranted to grant relief, since the factual foundation of the
dismissal stands dismantled. Ergo, where the acquittal is on merits, as in Ram
Lal (supra) and the present case, then such a scenario does indeed call for the
Page 44 of 50
court to intervene in judicial review and grant relief if the outcome would
otherwise be unjust and oppressive. Reading both judgments together, the
applicable principle is that a court in judicial review must examine the
substance of the acquittal, not merely its label. As such, the dictum in
Airports Authority of India (supra) is distinguishable on facts of the present
case and does not assist the Opposite Parties.
34. This Court now shifts its attention to the condition No.10 in the
engagement orders of the Petitioner, which the Opposite Parties have placed
considerable reliance on, which provides that engagement shall stand
cancelled upon detection of any fraudulent testimonial submitted by the Gana
Sikshyaks concerned. It is argued that since the OTET certificates have been
certified as fake by the Board of Secondary Education, Odisha, cancellation
follows as an automatic consequence. This Court is unable to accept such a
contention, primarily because the word “fraudulent” carries in itself a well-
settled legal requisite for both knowledge and intent. A testimonial cannot be
said to have been “fraudulently submitted” unless the person submitting it
had knowledge of its falsity and intended to deceive the receiving authority
(section 17 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872). In Ram Chandra
Singh v. Savitri Devi, reported in (2003) 8 SCC 319, while dealing with an
instance of fraudulent misrepresentation, the Hon’ble Apex Court clarified
that misrepresentation itself amounts to fraud and that it is a fraud in law if a
party makes representations which he knows to be false, and injury ensues
Page 45 of 50
therefrom although the motive from which the representations proceeded may
not have been bad. In the present cases, the Petitioners received their OTET
certificates by post through EMS Speed Post from the Board’s own official
dispatch channel and the P.W. No.6-Block Education Officer, who is also the
complainant, has himself admitted before the trial Court that such postal
dispatch is standard practice and that a candidate receiving a certificate
through official channels cannot reasonably be expected to doubt its
authenticity. He further admitted that the Petitioners derived no financial or
service benefit from the certificates. On this evidence, the attribution of
fraudulent intent to the Petitioners remains insupportable. Accordingly, this
Court holds that Condition No.10 of the engagement orders, and the
analogous condition in the regularization order of the 1st Petitioner, cannot be
invoked to sustain the dismissal of the Petitioners, and the reliance of the
Opposite Party-State on these conditions is rejected.
35. Next, specifically regarding the Petitioner in W.P.(C)
No.12944/2025, there is the additional issue of her regularisation, or, more
precisely, the inaction on the part of the Opposite Parties in regularising her
service. On a perusal of the records, it is undisputed that the Petitioner-
Sandhyarani Pallauri was engaged as Gana Sikshyak in August 2008 and
joined service on 12.08.2008. At the time of her removal in September 2021,
she had completed over thirteen years of uninterrupted service as a Gana
Sikshyak. Moreover, it is the notification dated 22.12.2016 of the S&ME
Page 46 of 50
Department, Government of Odisha, which provides for the requisite criteria
to be fulfilled for a Gana Sikshyak to be regularised as a Level-V Assistant
Teacher (ex-cadre). There is nothing on record to suggest that the Petitioner-
Sandhyarani Pallauri does not qualify any of the criteria mentioned therein.
So far as the OTET pass certificate is concerned, para 2(b) of the aforesaid
notification dated 22.12.2016 provides that a Gana Sikshyak shall be required
to pass the OTET examination within 31.03.2019 to be eligible for further
increment after 31.03.2019. Similarly, the allegation of the OTET pass
certificate being forged by the Petitioner has been completely dismissed by
the trial Court. Moreover, the Block Education Officer, Kuarmunda has
himself stated before the trial Court that non-submission of such certificate
would not affect the service of the Petitioner and that such OTET certificate
is not an eligibility criteria for getting appointment. Therefore, considering
the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Secretary, State of Karnataka
v. Uma Devi, reported in (2006) 4 SCC 1 (and the subsequent decisions in
Jaggo & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors., reported in 2024 SCC OnLine SC
3826 and Shripal & Anr. v. Nagar Nigam, Ghaziabad, reported in 2025 SCC
OnLine SC 221) and the earlier decision of this Court in Smt. Nirmala
Sahoo v. State of Odisha & Ors., bearing W.P.(C) No.25947 of 2022,
judgment dated 24.03.2023, this Court is of the view that the Petitioner-
Sandhyarani Pallauri ought to have been regularised in her service as Level-V
Assistant Teacher (Ex cadre).
Page 47 of 50
36. Having regard to the aforesaid analysis of this Court, on a perusal
of the case records, the submissions by both parties, the Counter Affidavit by
the Opposite Party No.5 and the Rejoinder thereto, on a consideration of the
fact that the trial court after a thorough evaluation of the entirety of the
evidence produced by the prosecution-Opposite Parties acquitted the
Petitioners in the criminal case that was based on substantially and materially
self-same allegations as the departmental action, further keeping in view the
statement of the Block Education Officer, Kuarmunda that the OTET
certificates not only have no effect on the service of the Petitioners but also
do not constitute an eligibility criteria for the appointment of the Petitioners,
taking note of the fact that both the Petitioners were initially demonstrably
dismissed without following the due procedure laid down in the O.C.S.
(CCA) Rules, 1962, and that both the Petitioners have once again appeared
for and qualified the OTET examination in the meantime, and keeping in
view the decision in Ram Lal (supra), Smt.Nirmala Sahoo (supra) and the
earlier orders by the coordinates Benches of this Court, the cumulative effect
of these considerations leaves this Court in no doubt that the claims of the
Petitioners are well-founded. Accordingly, this Court holds that the impugned
rejection orders dated 13.02.2025, at Annexure-19 of W.P.(C) No.6795 of
2025, and orders dated 28.03.2025 & 18.06.2025, at Annexures-12 and
Annexure-12(a) respectively to W.P.(C) No.12944 of 2025, are illegal and
unsustainable in law. Furthermore, as has been analyzed in the preceding
Page 48 of 50
paragraphs, in the case of the 1st Petitioner, the initial illegal dismissal of
September 2021 was sought to be cured by the subsequent disciplinary
proceeding of 2023, which, instead of conducting a genuine de novo inquiry,
merely sustained the original void order. That subsequent order dated
27.07.2023 has itself been set aside by the learned Coordinate Bench, leaving
the Opposite Parties without any legally valid foundation upon which to
sustain the dismissal of the 1st Petitioner. As regards the 2nd Petitioner, no
such curative disciplinary proceeding was ever conducted, and her original
disengagement stands equally vitiated for non-compliance with the prescribed
procedure. The impugned rejection orders are therefore set aside.
37. The Opposite Parties are directed to; Firstly, reinstate the
Petitioner-Pragnya Paramita Swain (W.P.(C) No.6795 of 2025) as
Elementary Level-V Teacher (Ex-Cadre), being the regularized post held by
her at the time of her dismissal, by treating her as having been in continuous
service from the initial date of her dismissal; Secondly, reinstate the
Petitioner-Sandhyarani Pallauri (W.P.(C) No.12944 of 2025) to the post held
by her at the time of her initial dismissal; Thirdly, extend to both the
Petitioners all the consequential service and financial benefits as is due and
admissible to them, subject to there being no surviving legal impediment to
the same. Let the aforesaid exercise be carried out within a period of six
weeks from the date of this judgement.
Page 49 of 50
38. Furthermore, the Opposite Parties are directed to issue the
necessary order(s) of regularization in favour of the Petitioner-Sandhyarani
Pallauri [in W.P.(C) No.12944 of 2025], regularizing her appointment as an
Elementary Level-V Teacher in terms of Government Notification No.25290
dated 22.12.2016, provided there exists no other legal impediment thereto,
with effect from the date on which she originally became eligible for such
regularization under the aforesaid Notification. The said exercise shall be
completed within a period of six weeks from the date of her reinstatement in
service in terms of the aforesaid directions of this Court.
39. The Writ Petitions are hereby disposed of. However, there shall be
no order as to costs.
(A. K. Mohapatra)
Judge
Orissa High Court, Cuttack
The 22nd May, 2026/Debasis Aech, Secretary.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: DEBASIS AECH
Reason: Authentication
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT
Date: 25-May-2026 13:35:21
Page 50 of 50
