Orissa High Court
WP(C)/16471/2026 of DHARANIDHAR BEHERA Vs UNION OF INDIA on 25 June 2026
of 2 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C) No.16471 of 2026 Dharanidhar Behera …. Petitioner Mr. B.S. Tripathy, Advocate -Versus- Union of India & Others …. Opp. Parties Mr. P.K. Parhi, DSGI along with Mr. D. Gochhayat, CGC CORAM: JUSTICE KRISHNA S. DIXIT JUSTICE
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
W.P.(C) No.16471 of 2026
Dharanidhar Behera
….
Petitioner
Mr. B.S. Tripathy, Advocate
-Versus-
Union of India & Others
….
Opp. Parties
Mr. P.K. Parhi, DSGI
along with Mr. D. Gochhayat, CGC
CORAM:
JUSTICE KRISHNA S. DIXIT
JUSTICE CHITTARANJAN DASH
Order No.
01.
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
1
Decisions referred to
In this index
1
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
ORDER
25.06.2026
Petitioner, an extra departmental agent, while having handling the money of Union Government, had temporarily misappropriated a part of the same on four occasions. In that connection, a disciplinary enquiry, having been constituted, culminated into an order of removal on the approval guilt which again is admitted as well. The challenge being laid at the hands of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Cuttack in OA No.194 of 2021, the same came to be negatived. Aggrieved thereby, the Petitioner is knocking at the doors of Writ Court.
Having heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and having perused the petition papers, we decline indulgence in the matter, inasmuch as the Petitioner admittedly remitted back the temporarily misappropriated money. Even otherwise, a disciplinary proceeding has been held and the punishment of removal has been awarded. Removal simpliciter does not come in the way of Petitioner gaining entry to the open market again, if he so desires.
It hardly needs to be stated that an official handling the public money has to have absolute integrity and that morality is not punctilious of the market place. If the confidence of the employer is shaken, that would be a sufficient ground for removal if not dismissal. This view is consistent with Apex Court decision in Dattatraya Govind Mahajan v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1977 SC 915 The Tribunal has structured its decision inarticulate premise of this kind.
In the above circumstances, petition being devoid of merits is liable to be dismissed and accordingly it is, costs having been made easy.
Web copy of this order to be acted upon by all concerned.
(Krishna S. Dixit) Judge
(Chittaranjan Dash) Judge
Madhusmita
Digitally Signed Signed by: MADHUSMITA MALLICK Designation: Jr. Stenographer Reason: Authentication Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACK Date: 01-Jul-2026 10:01:18 Signature Not Verified