Remanded

Mahebub Allam v. State of Odisha

Orissa HC12 Dec 2023WP(C)/12412/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition filed for reinstatement after acquittal in vigilance case. Court quashed rejection orders dismissing representation since leave to challenge acquittal was denied. Matter remanded to authority for fresh decision considering acquittal, relevant coordinate bench order, administrative circulars, and expeditious reinstatement.

What did the court decide?

Quashed rejection orders; remanded to Opposite Party No.1 for final decision within six weeks with direction to reinstate if no legal impediment.

Mahebub Allam Vs State of Odisha — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Orissa HC (2023)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

¶2

W.P.(C) No.12412 of 2022

¶3

Mahebub Allam

¶4

…. Petitioner Mr. H.K. Mund, Advocate

¶5

-versus-

¶6

State of Odisha and others

¶7

…. Opp. Parties Mr. N.K. Praharaj, A.G.A.

¶8

CORAM: JUSTICE A.K. MOHAPATRA

¶9

Order No.

¶10

ORDER 12.12.2023

¶11

1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual /Physical Mode).

¶12

Heard Mr. H.K. Mund, learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner as well as Mr. N.K. Praharaj, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the State-Opposite Parties. Perused the pleadings of the parties as well as the documents annexed thereto and materials placed before this Court for consideration in course of hearing.

¶13

The present writ petition has been filed by the Petitioner for a direction to the competent authority to take steps to reinstate him in his previous post in view of the development that he has been acquitted from all charges in criminal trial bearing T.R. No.24 of 2016 vide judgment dated 22.6.2021 passed by the learned Special Judge (Vigilance), Berhampur, Ganjam. A further prayer has also been made for revocation of

¶14

// 2 //

¶15

order dated 22.2.2016 of the Collector, Ganjam as well as the order dated 24.2.2022 passed by Panchayatiraj & DW Department, Government of Odisha.

¶16

The factual background of the present writ petition is that the Petitioner having a qualification of Diploma (Civil Engineer) was appointed as a Gram Panchayat Technical Assistant on 20.11.2016. Accordingly, he was posted at Belaguntha Block in Ganjam district. Thereafter he was transferred to different blocks. While working in Aska Block of Ganjam district, the Petitioner was entangled in a Vigilance Case and, accordingly, the Petitioner was made to face trial in such Vigilance Case, as a result of which, the Petitioner was disengaged from service by the Collector, Ganjam vide order dated 22.2.2016 under Annexure-2 to the writ petition. Thereafter, the Petitioner faced the trial and he was acquitted in the Vigilance Case vide judgment dated 26.2.2021 in T.R. Case No.24 dated 26.02.2016 under Annexure-3 to the writ petition. After acquittal in the vigilance case, the Petitioner filed a representation before the Opposite Party No.3 with a prayer to reinstate him in service, which was forwarded to the Opposite Party No.2. It further appears that since no decision was taken on the representation of the Petitioner, the Petitioner was compelled to approach this Court by filing W.P.(C) No.36279 of 2021. The said writ petition was disposed of on 23.11.2021 with a direction to the Opposite Party No.1 to consider the representation of the Petitioner within a stipulated

¶17

// 3 //

¶18

period of time. After disposal of the aforesaid writ petition, the Opposite Party No.1 vide order dated 24.2.2022 under Annexure-8 to the writ petition rejected the representation of the Petitioner on the ground that State has moved an application, i.e., CRLLP No.21 of 2021 before this Court seeking leave to challenge the judgment of acquittal passed in favour of the Petitioner.

¶19

Mr. Mund, learned counsel for the Petitioner referring to the additional affidavit filed in the present matter, submitted before this Court that leave application bearing CRLLP No.21 of 2021 filed by the State-Vigilance Department was heard and disposed of vide judgment dated 6^th December, 2022 by a coordinate Bench of this Court and, accordingly, the coordinate Bench has held that there is no ground to grant leave and, accordingly the leave application has been dismissed. In view of the aforesaid development, learned counsel for the Petitioner submitted that the Opposite Party No.1 be directed to reconsider the case of the Petitioner for reinstatement in service, as GPTA, as he was engaged earlier.

¶20

Learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the State-Opposite Parties referring to the counter affidavit submitted before this Court that pursuant to the direction of this Court in the earlier writ petition, the representation of the Petitioner was duly considered by the Opposite Party No.1. However, at the relevant point of time, the CRLLP application was pending for adjudication. Accordingly, the Opposite Party

¶21

No.1 has disposed of the representation of the Petitioner by coming to a conclusion that since the State Government has filed a leave application, no final decision will be taken by the Opposite Party No.1 with regard to reinstatement of the Petitioner in service. However, learned Additional Government Advocate submitted that since the leave application filed by the State has already been dismissed, it is open to the Petitioner to approach the Opposite Party No.1 once again for consideration of his case as has been directed by this Court in the earlier writ petition.

¶22

Having heard the learned counsels appearing for the respective parties and on a careful consideration of their submissions as well as on examination of pleadings of the parties and the materials placed on record, this Court is of the considered view that the impugned rejection orders dated 22.02.2016 and 24.2.2022 under Annexure-2 and Annexure-8

¶23

respectively have become irrelevant in view of the later development that CRLLP application has already been dismissed by this Court. Therefore, the same are hereby quashed. Further, the matter is remanded back to the Opposite Party No.1 to consider the case of the Petitioner afresh by taking into consideration the order dated 29.09.2022 passed by a coordinate Bench of this Court in W.P.(C) No.22219 of 2022 ( Bhagyadhar Dhal v. State of Odisha and Ors. ). Further, the Opposite Party No.1 shall also take into consideration the Circular of G.A. Department which would be applicable to the

¶24

// 5 //

¶25

facts of the Petitioner’s case. Accordingly, the Opposite Party No.1 shall take a final decision within a period of six weeks from the date of communication of a certified copy of this order. The final decision so taken be communicated to the Petitioner within two weeks from the date of taking such decision. It is further directed that, if there is no other legal impediment, the Petitioner be reinstated in service as expeditiously as possible.

¶26

With the aforesaid observation and direction, the writ

¶27

petition is disposed of.

¶28

Debasis

¶29

Urgent certified copy of this order be granted on proper
application.
( A.K. Mohapatra)
Judge

¶30

Signature Not Verified

¶31

Digitally Signed Signed by: DEBASIS AECH Designation: Secretary Reason: Authentication Location: OHC, CUTTACK. Date: 18-Dec-2023 18:01:01

Mahebub Allam v. State of Odisha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mahebub Allam v. State of Odisha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Pradeep Ku.Rana Vs Fci

Prasanta Kumar Mishra Vs State of Odisha

Jhunulata Das Vs State of Odisha

Kameswar Gouda Vs State of Odisha

Chandra Sekhar Pujhari Vs State of Odisha

Krishnalal Duria Vs Indira Gandhi National Open University, New Delhi