Orissa High Court
Sumanta Kumar Jena vs State Of Odisha & Others .... Opposite ... on 18 November, 2025
Author: Biraja Prasanna Satapathy
Bench: Biraja Prasanna Satapathy
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
W.P.(C) No.11045 of 2022
In the matter of an application under Article 226 &
227 of the Constitution of India, 1950.
..................
Sumanta Kumar Jena Petitioner
....
-versus-
State of Odisha & Others .... Opposite Parties
For Petitioner: M/s. Dr. J.K. Lenka &
P.K. Behera, Adv.
For Opp. Parties: M/s. P.K. Panda
Addl.Standing Counsel
PRESENT:
THE HONBLE MR.JUSTICE BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Date of Hearing: 18.11.2025 and Date of Judgment: 18.11.2025
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Biraja Prasanna Satapathy, J.
1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Mode.
2. Heard learned counsel appearing for the parties.
// 2 //
3. The present Writ Petition has been filed inter alia with the following prayer:
The petitioner, therefore, most humbly prays that your Lordship would be graciously pleased to quash the punishment order dt.23.3.2019 at Annexure-11, appellate order dt.3.11.2020 at Annexure-13 and Revisional order at Annexure-15 and further be pleased to direct the Opp. parties to extend all benefits, as due to admissible by treating the suspension period as duty with all consequential and financial benefits, And pass any other order/orders, direction/directions as deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case;
And for which act of kindness, the petitioner as in duty bound shall ever pray.
4. It is contended that while continuing in service, Petitioner was implicated in G.R. Case No.358 of 2015 in the file of learned S.D.J.M., Kendrapara. Because of such implication in the Criminal case for the offence under Sections 498(A)/294/323/307/506/34 of the I.P.C r/w Section 4 of the D.P. Act, the Departmental Proceeding was initiated against him vide Kendrapara District Proceeding No.15 of 2015 under Annexure-5. 4.1. The charge framed in the said proceeding reads as follows:
Page 2 of 12
// 3 // CHARGE Ref: Kendrapara district Proceeding No. 15 2015 C/413 Sumanta Kumar Jena (Now under suspension) of Kendrapara district is charged with gross misconduct in that While he was posted to Chaudakulat OP, he was granted 3 days C1 by IIC Pattamundai PS and availed the same wef 16.03.15 PM to 19.03.15 PM. He was due to join his duty on 20.03.15 AM. But he overstayed the leave without any intimation to the authority. On 22.03.15 one Babaji Charan Nayak, S/o: Late Madhusudan Nayak of village Balisingh, PS Patkura, Dist: Kendrapara presented a written report alleging there in that his niece Subhadra Nayak, Dio: Pradeep Kumar Nayak has got married to C/413 Sumanta Kumar Jena. On the same day C/413 Sumanata Kumar Jena and his brother in law jointly assaulted his wife Subhadra Nayak and when she was in unconscious condition then they brought her on a motor cycle and threw her near the G.P. Office near an Osta tree. In this connection Patkura PS Case No.55 dt.22.03.15 U/s498(A)/294/323/307/506/34 IPC /4 DP Act has been registered and the accused C/413 Sumanta Kumar Jena had been arrested and forwarded to the Court of the SDJM, Kendrapara on 23.03.15 for his involvement. Such type of act is clearly indicates his gross misconduct.
He is directed to show cause within 30 days of receipt of the charge as to why suitable departmental action should not be initiated against him in the event of charge being proved against him.
Any representation he may wish to offer in this regard will be duly considered by the authority competent to pass final orders in this regard.
4.2. Learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner contended that in the Criminal Proceeding so initiated in G.R. Case No.358 of 2015 corresponding to S.T. Case No.20/181-2017, Petitioner was acquitted of all the Page 3 of 12 // 4 // charges vide judgment dt.04.03.2017 of the learned C.J.M-cum-Asst. Sessions Judge, Kendrapara under Annexure-4. View expressed by the trial Court in para-7 of the judgment reads as follows:
7. This being the sum total of the prosecution evidence, on a careful perusal it is found that there is no evidence at all regarding any dowry demand or torture to the victim for the same or assault on her by any of the accused persons or abusal or criminal breach of trust as well as criminal intimidation shown to her by any of the accused persons. Rather all the prosecution witnesses have stated that the victim is residing peacefully with the accused persons. In the facts and circumstances therefore especially when it is a matter between the husband and wife who are now residing peacefully, I am to hold that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove the case under any of the offences Urs 498(A)/294/23/406/506/307/34 of the IPC and section-4 of D.P. Act against the accused persons.
Accordingly they are acquitted of the same U/s 235(11 of the Cr.P.C. They be set at liberty forthwith. 4.3. It is contended that on the face of such clean acquittal in the criminal proceeding, Petitioner was imposed with punishment in the Departmental Proceeding vide order dt.23.09.2019 under Annexure-11. Vide the said order, Petitioner was imposed with the punishment of 3(three) Black Mark and the period from 20.03.2015 to 22.03.2015 was treated as "No Pay" and the period of suspension from 23.03.2015 to 30.06.2015 was treated "as such". Appeal filed by the Petitioner was Page 4 of 12 // 5 // also rejected vide order dt.03.11.2020 under Annexure-
13. Similarly, the Revision so filed was also rejected vide order dt.26.11.2021 under Annexure-15. 4.4. It is the main contention of the learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner that since the Proceeding in question was initiated on self-same charges as like the charges in the Criminal Proceeding in G.R. Case No.358 of 2015, on the face of his clean acquittal vide judgment dt.04.03.2017 under Annexure-4, Petitioner could not have been imposed with the punishments vide the impugned order under Annexure-11 so confirmed vide order under Annexures-13 & 15.
4.5. In support of his aforesaid submission, reliance was placed to the following decisions:
1.Ramlal Vs. State of Rajasthan and Others
2. Maharana Pratap Singh Vs. State of Bihar 4.6. Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Ram Lal in Paragraphs 3,5,6,7,8,26,27 & 30 has held as follows:
"3. The identical allegation in both the proceedings was that the Appellant altered his date of birth from Page 5 of 12 // 6 // 21.04.1974 to 21.04.1972 in his 8th standard marksheet. It was alleged that this was done to project himself as having attained majority at the time of the recruitment. The appellant denied the charges.
xxx xxx xxx xxx
5. Five witnesses were examined in the departmental proceeding. These very five witnesses were also examined in the criminal trial, apart from eight other witnesses who were also examined at the criminal trial. The Enquiry Officer in the departmental proceeding found the charges proved and the Disciplinary Authority, by an order of 31.03.2004, dismissed the appellant from service. The Appellate Authority also dismissed the appeal. Attempts to have the order reviewed and the penalty reconsidered were also in vain.
6. At the criminal trial, the trial Court convicted the appellant for the offence under Section 420 of the IPC and sentenced him to undergo three years' imprisonment along with a fine of Rs.5,000/-. However, the Additional District and Sessions Judge, Jodhpur ('Appellate Judge'), vide judgment dated 24.08.2007, allowed the criminal appeal and acquitted the appellant.
7. The appellant, thereafter, represented for his reinstatement. Subsequently, he filed a writ petition in August, 2008 for quashing the dismissal order dated 31.03.2004, the order of the Appellate Authority, and the orders refusing to review and reconsider the above- said orders.
8. The learned Single Judge, by his judgment dated 13.08.2008, dismissed the writ pettion by holding that the standard of proof in a criminal proceeding and departmental proceeding is different. The learned Single Judge found no infirmity in the order of the Disciplinary Authority. The writ appeal filed by the appellant has also been dismissed by reiterating the findings of the learned Single Judge and by further elucidating as to how the parameters for a judicial review against an order in a departmental proceeding are limited and circumscribed. Being aggrieved, the appellant is in appeal before us.
xxx xxx xxx xxx
Page 6 of 12
// 7 //
26. We are satisfied that the findings of the appellate judge in the criminal case clearly indicate that the charge against the appellant was not just, "not proved" - in fact the charge even stood "disproved" by the very prosecution evidence. As held by this Court, a fact is said to be "disproved" when, after considering the matters before it, the Court either believes that it does not exist or considers its non-existence so probable that a prudent man ought, under the circumstances of the particular case, to act upon the supposition that it does not exist. A fact is said to be "not proved" when it is neither "proved" nor "disproved" (see Vijayee Singh and Others vs. State of U.P. (1990)3 SCC 190).
27. We are additionally satisfied that in the teeth of the finding of the appellate Judge, the disciplinary proceedings and the orders passed thereon cannot be allowed to stand. The charges were not just similar but identical and the evidence, witnesses and circumstances were all the same. This is a case where in exercise of our discretion, we quash the orders of the disciplinary authority and the appellate authority as allowing them to stand will be unjust, unfair and oppressive. This case is very similar to the situation that arose in G.M. Tank (supra).
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."
4.7. Hon'ble Apex Court in Para-47 & 50 of the decision in the case of Maharana Pratap Singh has held as follows:
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 Page 7 of 12 // 8 // 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
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. 4.8. It is also contended that placing reliance on the aforesaid decisions of the Apex Court in the case of Ram Lal & Mohan Lal, this Court on a similar issue interfered with the order of punishment. View expressed by this court in Para-6,6.1 and 6.2 of the said order reads as follows:
6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after going through the materials available on record, this Court finds that for the alleged taking away of a table fan, from an adjacent quarter, deceased-
Petitioner was not only proceeded with in the Disciplinary Proceeding but also a Criminal Proceeding was initiated against him. As per the settled position of law, since both the proceedings were initiated on self-same charges, Disciplinary Authority prior to disposal of the Criminal Proceeding, should not have disposed of the Disciplinary Proceeding by imposing the punishment of removal in question.
6.1.Be that as it may, since deceased-Petitioner in the Criminal Proceeding was duly acquitted which is Page 8 of 12 // 9 // not on benefit of doubt, but on merit, in view of the recent decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Ram Lal as cited (supra), this Court is of the view that removal from service of the deceased-petitioner under Annexure-3, so confirmed by Appellate Authority under Annexure-5 as well as by the Revisional Authority under Annexure-6, are not sustainable in the eye of law. The order removal of services is also not in consonance with the alleged misconduct and it is at a much higher side. 6.2. In that view of the matter, this Court is inclined to quash the order of punishment passed against the deceased-Petitioner on 31.05.1992 under Annexure-3 and consequential order issued on 30.07.2005 under Annexures-5 and 08.05.2006 under Annexure-6. While quashing the same, this Court held the deceased-Petitioner to be continuing in his service till he attained the age of superannuation on 31.07.2005. While holding so, this Court held that the deceased-Petitioner is eligible and entitled to get the pension and other pensionary benefits as due and admissible to him. The deceased-Petitioner will be entitled to get pension from the date of retirement i.e. 01.07.2015 till he died on 20.09.2020. It is also held that after the death of deceased-Petitioner, petitioner NO.1(a) being the wife of the deceased employee also became entitled to get the benefit of family pension w.e.f 21.09.2020.
5. Learned Addl. Standing Counsel on the other hand contended that since the proceeding was initiated because of the implication of the Petitioner in the Criminal Proceeding for various offences including offence under Sections 307/406 of the I.P.C, taking into account such involvement of the Petitioner and his remaining in custody for the period from 20.03.2015 to 22.03.2015, Petitioner was not only placed under suspension w.e.f 23.03.2015, but also the proceeding in Page 9 of 12 // 10 // question was initiated against him under Annexure-3, in Kendrapara District Proceeding No.15 of 2015. 5.1. Since in the proceeding in question, Petitioner was held guilty of the charges by the Inquiry Officer, by following due procedure of law and giving due opportunity of hearing to the Petitioner, the Proceeding was disposed of vide order dt.23.09.2019 under Anexure- 11 of Opp. party No.4. It is contended that such an order of punishment though was assailed by the Petitioner with filing of appeal and thereafter Revision, but the Appellate Authority as well as the Revisional authority- Opp. party Nos.2 & 3 rejected the appeal as well as the Revision vide order dt.03.11.2020 under Annexure-13 and 26.11.2021 under Annexure-15 respectively.
5.2. It is accordingly contended that since the order passed by the Disciplinary Authority has been confirmed by the Appellate authority as well as by the Revisional authority and there is no allegation that the proceeding has not been conducted in accordance with law , no illegality or irregularity can be found with the impugned Page 10 of 12 // 11 // order of punishment so passed under Annexure-11, further confirmed under Annexures-13 & 15.
6. Having heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and considering the submission made, this Court finds that Petitioner because of his implication in G.R. Case No.358 of 2015 for the offence 498(A)/294/323/307/506/34 of the I.PC r/w Section 4 of the D.P. Act, the Proceeding in question was initiated against him vide Kendrapara District Proceeding No.15 of 2015 under Annexure-5 on self-same charges. 6.1. However, it is found that Petitioner was acquitted in the Criminal Proceeding by the learned C.J.M-cum-Asst. Sessions Judge, Kendrapara in S.T. Case No. 20/181-2017 vide its judgment dt.04.03.2017 under Annexure-4. It is the view of this Court that on the face of such clean acquittal given in favour of the Petitioner and the decision governing the field in the case of Ram Lal and Maharana Pratap Singh and the decision of this Court as cited supra, Petitioner could not have been imposed with the punishment so imposed on him vide the impugned order under Annexures-11, confirmed Page 11 of 12 // 12 // vide order under Annexures-13 and 15. While quashing the orders under Annexure-11,13 & 15, this Court allows the Writ Petition.
6.2. However, it is observed that Petitioner will not be entitled to get benefit salary for the period he remained in custody. However, the said period be regularised in accordance with law including the period so involved. 6.3. The Writ Petition accordingly stands disposed of.
(Biraja Prasanna Satapathy) Judge Orissa High Court, Cuttack Dated the 18th November, 2025 /Sangita Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: SANGITA PATRA Reason: authenticaton of order Location: high court of orissa, cuttack Date: 25-Nov-2025 14:03:37 Page 12 of 12