WA/3022/2024 of MANATOSH BISWAS Vs STATE OF ORISSA on 25 June 2026

ORDER

25.06.2026 This Intra-Court Appeal by the delinquent-Teacher seeks to call in question a learned Single Judge’s order dated 09.01.2020, whereby his WP(C) No.23990 of 2015 has been negatived. In the said Writ Petition, he had challenged the order dated 22.09.2015 passed by District Welfare Officer, whereby he was disengaged for the post of Sikshya Sahayak on the ground of his unauthorized absence, misconduct with a lady colleague and a girl student and also his involvement in a criminal case although, the same ended in acquittal.

2. The appeal has been filed on 09.10.2024 against the impugned order dated 09.01.2020 and thus there is a long delay of 1704 days in filing the Appeal. An application in I.A. No.7526 of 2024 supported by affidavit is moved seeking its condonation. The Appellant has pleaded the COVID-19 pandemic as the principal ground for the delay. A perusal of the application does not generate confidence in the mind of the Court with respect to what has been averred is bona fide and even that, if averments are taken on face value. Therefore, the application is liable to be rejected. Learned counsel for the Appellant vehemently submits that the criminal case ended in acquittal and that aspect of the matter has not been noted by the disciplinary authority by awarding the punishment of disengagement. According to him, this would constitute an error apparent on the face of the record which warranted learned Single Judge to interfere in the matter for setting the injustice at naught.

3. Learned AGA Mr. Mohanty appearing for the State makes submission in justification of the impugned order telling the Court that there being absolutely no explanation whatsoever for the long delay brooked, the application is liable to be rejected. He also tells us that in the light of decision of the Apex Court in Ram Lal v. The State of Rajasthan, 2023 INSC 1047, the Appellant is not entitled to any leniency in a grave misconduct that has been proved in the disciplinary enquiry regarless of what has happened to the criminal trial. So contending, he seeks dismissal of the Appeal.

4. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the appeal papers, we decline indulgence in the matter both on merits and on delay broadly agreeing with the submission made by the learned AGA. The learned Single Judge has considered all aspects of the matter and only then, has denied relief to the delinquent Appellant.

5. The Apex Court in Ram Lal (supra) has held that unless the criminal case ends in honourable acquittal, the disciplinary proceedings can be held and sustained on the evidentiary material which has been treated in the criminal trial itself. It is not the case of Appellant that the ratio in Ram Lal (supra) is readily invokable. The Appellant having misbehaved with a lady colleague and a girl student, the punishment awarded in the disciplinary enquiry is legally perfect and it leaves no scope whatsoever for our interference. Regardless of some agreeable points in the matter. In the above circumstances, this Appeal fails both on merits and on delay, costs having been made easy. Web copy of this order be acted upon by all concerned.

(Krishna S. Dixit) Judge

(Chittaranjan Dash) Judge

Prasant

Digitally Signed Signed by: PRASANT KUMAR SAHOO Reason: Authentication Location: Orissa High Court Date: 01-Jul-2026 15:40:33 Signature Not Verified