Banabihari Rath Vs State of Odisha — Orissa HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

Banabihari Rath Vs State of Odisha — Orissa HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioner's dismissal from service (disciplinary inquiry order dated 19.09.2014) should be set aside and he reinstated, given his acquittal after a full-fledged trial in G.R. Case No.598 of 2014 (decided 10.02.2015). +1 more

Court's answer

Parallel proceedings of the kind (a disciplinary inquiry alongside a criminal case) are permissible, and what happens subsequently in the criminal case is not relevant, especially where the dismissal from service precedes the acquittal; the Court expressly agrees with the State's contention advanced in the light of Capt. M. Paul Anthony v. Bharat Gold Mines Ltd, AIR 1999 SC 1416.

Ratio / Principle

A teacher dismissed from service on the ground of misconduct involving high moral turpitude such as rape cannot be continued as a teacher, since continuance would give a very wrong impression to the children and their parents.

Key takeaways

The writ petition is thoroughly devoid of merits and is liable to be and accordingly rejected.ratio¶¶20

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ petition by a school teacher dismissed from service by disciplinary inquiry order dated 19.09.2014 in connection with a rape charge punishable under Section 376 of the erstwhile Indian Penal Code, 1860, seeking setting aside of the dismissal and reinstatement on the ground of his acquittal after a full-fledged trial in G.R. Case No.598 of 2014, decided on 10.02.2015. Held (Dixit Krishna Shripad, J.): (i) parallel proceedings — a Disciplinary Inquiry and a criminal case — are permissible, and a subsequent acquittal is not relevant where the dismissal precedes the acquittal, agreeing with the State's contention grounded in Capt. M. Paul Anthony v. Bharat Gold Mines Ltd, AIR 1999 SC 1416; (ii) a teacher dismissed for misconduct involving high moral turpitude such as rape cannot be continued as a teacher, as that would give a wrong impression to children and their parents. Petition rejected as thoroughly devoid of merits, costs made easy.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

W.P.(C) No.5759 of 2025

Banabihari Rath

…. Petitioner

Mr. S. Behera, Advocate

-Versus-

State of Odisha and Others

…. Opposite Parties

Mr. S.K. Jee, AGA

CORAM:

JUSTICE DIXIT KRISHNA SHRIPAD

ORDER

Order No. 01.

18.09.2025

A school teacher, who was involved in rape charge punishable under Section 376 of erstwhile Indian Penal Code, 1860 and who has been dismissed from service vide disciplinary inquiry order dated 19.09.2014, is knocking at the doors of this Court essentially seeking a direction for setting aside the dismissal and consequential reinstatement in service, on the ground that he has been granted acquittal after a full-fledged trial in G.R. Case No.598 of 2014 decided on 10.02.2015.

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner vehemently argues that the impugned order of dismissal is wrong because his client has been acquitted in the criminal case and secondly, the parallel proceedings, namely, one Disciplinary Inquiry and another criminal case could not have been proceeded at a time to his prejudice.

Learned AGA-Mr. Jee appearing for the OPs opposes the petition on the ground that it is always permissible to hold parallel proceedings of the kind, in the light of Apex Court

Page 1 of 2

decision Capt. M. Paul Anthony v. Bharat Gold Mines Ltd, AIR 1999 SC 1416 and secondly, what happens subsequently in criminal case is not relevant, especially when the dismissal from service precedes the acquittal. I agree with this submission. He also rightly says that when a teacher is dismissed from service on the ground of a misconduct involving a high moral turpitude like rape, such a person cannot be continued as a teacher and if continued that would give a very wrong impression to the children and their parents. There is lot of force in this submission too.

In the above circumstances, writ petition, being thoroughly devoid of merits, is liable to be and accordingly rejected, costs having been reluctantly made easy.

( Dixit Krishna Shripad ) Judge

Madhusmita

Signature Not Verified

Digitally Signed Signed by: MADHUSMITA MALLICK Designation: Asst-Register-cum-Senior Secretary Reason: Authentication Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, C UTT ACK Date: 18-Sep-2025 18:47:02

Page 2 of 2