Somanath Khamari Vs State of Odisha

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

¶2

WP(C) No.7068 of 2025

¶3

Somanath Khamari .....

¶4

Petitioner

¶5

Represented By Adv. - Akshaya Kumar Sahoo

¶6

-versus-

¶7

1) State Of Odisha ..... Opposite Parties 2) Addl. Dg Of Police Cum Ig Of Represented By Adv. – Prisoners And Dcs, Cuttack Mr.S.K.Brahma,ASC 3) Dig Of Police, Sambalpur 4) Senior Supdt. Circle Jail, Sambalpur

¶8

CORAM:

¶9

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADITYA KUMAR MOHAPATRA

ORDER

24.04.2025

Order No.

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

¶14

2. Heard Mr. A.K. Sahoo, learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner and Mr. S.K.Brahma, learned Additional Standing Counsel for the State.

¶15

3. The Petitioner has filed the present Writ Petition challenging the order dt.04.06.2016 so passed by the Opp. party No.4 under Annexure-5, thereby dismissing the

¶16

Page 1 of 5.

¶17

Petitioner from his service with immediate effect in terms of Rule 18(I) of the OCS (CCA) Rule, 1962.

¶18

4. Learned counsel for the Petitioner contended that the Petitioner while continuing as a Warder, he was implicated in Kuchinda P.S. Case No.162 dt.08.09.2013 corresponding to G.R. Case No.409 of 2013 in the file of learned S.D.J.M, Kuchinda. The trial of the case was subsequently taken up by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kuchinda in T.R. Case No.3 of 2014. Learned Addl. Sessions Judge vide his judgment dt.23.04.2016, while holding the Petitioner guilty for the offences under Sections 323/34 of the I.P.C passed the following sentence against the Petitioner.

¶19

Considering the above submission from both sides, the convicts are sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-(Rupees one thousand) each, in default, to undergo S.I for one month each for the offences under Section 323 of the I.P.C.

¶20

4.1. Learned counsel for the Petitioner contended that challenging the order of conviction and sentence passed in the aforesaid G.R. Case, the Petitioner approached this Court in Crl. Appeal No.242 of 2016. This Court vide order dt.16.05.2016 while admitting the appeal stayed the realization of fine so imposed by the learned Trial Court.

¶21

It is contended that since the order of conviction and sentence is in the nature of a fine of Rs.1,000/- and that was stayed by this Court, while admitting the appeal vide order dt.16.05.2016 under Annexure-3, the Petitioner should not have been dismissed from service on the ground of such

¶22

Page 2 of 5.

¶23

conviction and sentence vide the impugned order dt.04.06.2016 under Annexure-5. It is accordingly contended that the impugned order of dismissal so passed under Annexure-5 is not sustainable in the eye of law.

¶24

5. Learned counsel for the Petitioner further contended that one of the co-accused who stands on similar footing like the Petitioner and has been convicted in the aforesaid G.R.Case initially approached the Orissa Administrative Tribunal by filing O.A.No.4496(C) of 2016 challenging the very same order dated 04.06.2016 under Annexure-5. After abolition of the Tribunal, the matter was transferred to this Court and renumbered as WPC(OAC) No.4496 of 2016. A coordinate bench of this Court vide order dated 31.07.2023 allowed the Writ Petition by quashing the impugned order dated 16.05.2016 under Annexure-4 to that Writ Petition with a direction to reinstate the Petitioner in service within a period of two weeks with an observation that the back period of service from the date of dismissal till reinstatement be regularised on notional basis and the Petitioner will not be entitled to get any financial benefit for such period except counting of such period to calculate the qualifying period of service for the purpose of pensionary benefit.

¶25

Mr. Brahma, learned Addl. Standing Counsel on the other hand while supporting the impugned order made his submission basing on the stand taken in the counter affidavit filed by the Opp. Parties.

¶26

6.1 It is contended that since the Petitioner was convicted and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- in default to

¶27

Page 3 of 5.

¶28

undergo S.I for one month and the said order of conviction has not been stayed by this Court while admitting the appeal, Petitioner has been rightly dismissed from his service.

¶29

7. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after going through the materials available on record, this Court finds that leaned Addl. Sessions Judge, Kuchinda after hearing on the question of sentence, convicted the Petitioner and sentenced him to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default, S.I for one month. The said order of conviction and sentence is under challenge before this Court in Crl. Appeal No.242 of 2016. This Court further finds that the fine imposed on the Petitioner in the nature of sentence has been stayed vide order dt.16.05.2016. On the face of such order passed on 16.05.2016, the authorities could not have dismissed the petitioner from service taking recourse to the provisions contained under Rule 18(I) of the OCS ( CCA) Rules, 1962.

¶30

7.1. In view of such material irregularities, this Court is inclined to quash the order dt.04.06.2016 under Annexure-5. While quashing the same, this Court directs Opp. party No.4 to reinstate the Petitioner in his service within a period of two (2) weeks from the date of receipt of this order. However, the break period of service from the date of dismissal till the date of reinstatement be regularized on notional basis and the petitioner will not be entitled to get any financial benefit save and except counting of the period as pensionable service.

¶31

Page 4 of 5.

¶32

However, the order of reinstatement to be issued in favour of the Petitioner, shall be subject to the final outcome of Criminal Appeal No.242 of 2016.

¶33

8. The Writ Petition is accordingly allowed and disposed of with the aforesaid observation and direction.

¶34

(A.K.Mohapatra) Judge

¶35

RKS

¶36

¶37

Signature Not Verified Page 5 of 5.

¶38

Digitally Signed Signed by: RAMESH KUMAR SINGH Designation: AR-CUM-Senior Secretary Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa Date: 25-Apr-2025 16:34:29

Somanath Khamari v. State of Odisha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Somanath Khamari v. State of Odisha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Basanti Panda Vs State of Odisha

Babita Mohanty Vs State of Odisha

Ramjit Kumar Hansda Vs State of Odisha

Malay Sasmal Vs Junior Engineer, Electrical, Rasulgarh Fulnakhara Sub-Division

P.Ramudu Reddy Vs State of Odisha

Dharmendra Kar Vs State of Odisha