The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C ) No.21965 of 2025 Dr. Sarat Kumar Panigrahi …. Petitioner Mr. D.R.Bhokta, Adv. -versus- State of Odisha & Another Opposite Parties Mr.C.K. Pradhan, AGA COROM: JUSTICE BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY Order No ORDER 18.11.2025 5. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Mode.
Legal Reasoning
2. Heard learned counsel appearing for the parties. 3. The present Writ Petition has been filed inter alia with the following prayer: The Petitioner, therefore, prays that this Hon’ble Court be graciously pleased to issue a Rule Nisi calling upon the Opp. Parties to show cause as to why a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ or writs shall not be issued; (i) Quashing the order of the penalty dated 21.05.2016 under Annexure-22 and order dt.04.07.2023 under Annexure-30. (ii) If the opposite parties fail to show-cause or show insufficient cause to make the said rule absolute; and (iii) to pass such other order/orders and to issue such other writ/writs as would afford complete relief to the Petitioners; And for this act of kindness, the Petitioner shall as in duty bound ever pray. // 2 // 4. It is the case of the Petitioner that since the proceeding initiated vide Memorandum dt.28.10.2011 under Rule-15 of the OCS (CC & A) Rules, 1962, Vide Annexure-2 was disposed of vide order dt.21.05.2016 under Annexure-22 with the following punishment: 1. Withholding of two increments with cumulative effect. 2. The period of suspension is treated as such. 4.1. It is contended that against such order of punishment imposed on the Petitioner vide order dt.21.05.2016, Petitioner preferred an appeal on 16.09.2016 under Annexure-23. It is contended that the appellate authority vide order dt.12.07.2017 so reflected in order at Annexure-23 while holding that the proceeding cannot be dropped, directed for fresh inquiry in the matter and to finalise the proceeding so initiated within a maximum period of 6(six) months. However, on the face of such order passed by the Appellate authority under Annexure-23, when Petitioner vide order dt.27.06.2017 under Annexure-24 was directed to appear before the Appellate authority for hearing of the appeal, Petitioner vide letter dt.12.07.2017 under Annexure-25, made a request to dispose of the proceeding in terms of the order passed under Annexure-23 or the proceeding be dropped. However, on the face of such request made by the Petitioner under Annexure-25 and the order earlier passed by the Page 2 of 5 // 3 // Appellate authority under Annexure-23, the Appellate authority once again vide order dt.21.05.2019 under Annexure-27, disposed of the Appeal by confirming the order of punishment passed against the Petitioner vide order under Annexure-22. 4.2. Learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner contended that, on the face of the order passed by the Appellate authority under Annexure-23, the Appellate authority subsequently could not have taken up the appeal with passing of the order under Annexure-27 and instead the Disciplinary Authority would have been directed to dispose of the proceeding in terms of the order passed under Annexure-23. It is further contended that against order dt.21.05.2019 so passed by the Appellate authority on a wrong motion under Annexure- 27, Petitioner though filed a Review vide Annexure-28, but the said Review Petition was also dismissed vide order dt.04.07.2023 under Annexure-30. 4.3. It is accordingly contended that on the face of the order passed by the appellate authority on 12.07.2017 under Annexure-23, wherein the Appellate authority was pleased to remit the matter to the Disciplinary Authority and for its disposal by making a fresh inquiry, on the face of such order, the Appellate authority could not have taken up the Appeal with passing of the order under Anenxure-27 and dismissal of the Review vide order under Annexure-30. It is accordingly contended Page 3 of 5 // 4 // that in view of the order passed under Annexure-23, the self-same authority could not have passed any further order vide order dt.21.05.2019 under Annexure-27 and order dt.04.07.2023 under Annexure-30. It is accordingly contended that orders passed under Annexures-27 and 30 are not sustainable in the eye of law. 5. Even though this Court vide order dt.12.08.2025 directed the State Counsel to obtain instruction, as to how on the face of the order passed under Annexure-23, the self-same authority passed a different order under Annexure-27 and thereafter under Annexure-30, but on the face of repeated opportunity being given to the State Counsel, no instruction is forthcoming. In view of the same, this Court has no other option than to dispose of the matter basing on the materials available on record. 6. Having heard learned cousnel appearing for the parties and considerng the submision made, it is found that against the order of punishment passed in the proceeding vide order dt.21.05.2016 under Annexure- 22, Petitioner preferred an Appeal on 16.09.2016 and while dealing with the same, Opp. Party No.1 passed order dt.12.07.2017 under Annexure-23. In the said order, Opp. Party No.1 thought it proper for having a fresh inquiry in the matter and for disposal of the proceeding so initiated within a period of 6(six) months. On the face of such order passed by Opp. Party No.1 on Page 4 of 5 // 5 // 12.05.2017 under Annexure-23, the self-same authority could not have passed a different order while dealing with the Appeal once again vide order dt.21.05.2019 under Annexure-27 and thereafter dismissing the review so filed by the Petitioner, vide order dt.04.07.2023 under Annexure-30. 6.1. In view of the aforesaid analysis, this Court is of the view that the proceeding initiated under Annexure-2
Decision
is required to be disposed of in terms of the order passed by Opp. Party No.1 on 12.07.2017 under Annexure-23. 6.2. Therefore, this Court is inclined to quash order dt.21.05.2019 and order dt. 04.07.2023 so passed by Opp. Party No.1 under Annexures-27 and 30. While quashing both the orders, this Court directs Opp. Party No.1 to dispose of the proceeding in the light of the order passed by him on 12.07.2017 under Annexure-23. 6.3. Since the proceeding is of the year 2011, Opp. Party No.1 is directed to take up the proceeding and dispose of the same in terms of the order dt.12.07.2017 as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of 6(six) months hence, failing which the proceeding shall be treated as dropped. 6.4. The Writ Petition accordingly stands disposed of. Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: SANGITA PATRA Reason: authenticaton of order sangita Location: high court of orissa, cuttack Date: 25-Nov-2025 14:16:07 (Biraja Prasanna Satapathy) Judge Page 5 of 5