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. J.K. Rath, Sr. Advocate Govt. of Odisha and Another -versus- …. Opposite Parties Mr. P.K. Sahoo, ASC CORAM: JUSTICE BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY ORDER 12.05.2026 Order No. I.A. No.5359 of 2026 06. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual/Physical) Mode.
Legal Reasoning
2. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 3. This Interim Application has been filed seeking modification of order dated 18.11.2025. 4. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner contended that while disposing the Writ Petition vide order dated 18.11.2025, since this Court quashed order dated 21.05.2019 and so also order dated 04.07.2023, so passed by Opp. Party No.1 under Annexure-27 and 30, the matter could not have been remitted to Opp. Party No.1 to dispose of the proceeding in terms of order dated 12.07.2017. // 2 // 4.1. It is contended that since order passed by the Appellate Authority on 21.05.2019, was set aside by this Court, the proceeding should have been treated as closed instead of permitting Opp. Party No.1 to proceed with the proceeding in terms of order dated 12.07.2017. 4.2. It is also contended in the cause title of order dated 18.11.2025, the Case No. has been wrongly typed as “W.P.(C) No.21965 of 2022” in place of “W.P.(C) No.21965 of 2025”. It is accordingly contended that order dated 18.11.2025 needs modification. 5. Learned Addl. Standing Counsel on the other hand contended that the Writ Petition was filed inter alia challenging order dated 21.05.2019 and 04.07.2023, so passed by Opp. Party No.1 under Annexure-27 and 30, inter alia on the ground that on the face of the order passed by the Appellate Authority on 12.07.2017 under Annexure-23, no such further order could have been passed by the self-same Appellate Authority vide order dated 21.05.2019 and further order passed on 04.07.2023 under Annexure- 27 and 30. 5.1. It is contended that vide order dated 12.07.2017 under Annexure-23, the Appellate Authority while quashing the order passed by the Disciplinary Page 2 of 6 // 3 // Authority, directed for fresh enquiry and to finalize the proceeding so initiated within a period of 6(six) months. 5.2. On the face of such order passed on 12.07.2017, petitioner when was directed by the self-same Appellate Authority for hearing of the appeal vide letter dated 27.06.2017 under Annexure-24, petitioner though while submitting the reply, raised the issue that the appeal after being disposed of vide order dated 12.07.2017 under Annexure-23, the Disciplinary Authority has been permitted to cause fresh enquiry and to dispose of the proceeding in accordance with law maximum within a period of 6(six) months without proper appreciation of the same, the Appellate Authority once again when passed an order on 21.05.2019 by upholding the order of punishment passed by the Disciplinary Authority on 21.05.2016 and it was further confirmed vide order dated 04.07.2023 under Annexure-30, the Writ Petition was filed challenging the orders issued under Annexure-27 and 30. 5.3. It is accordingly contended that since vide order dated 12.07.2017 under Annexure-23, the appellate authority while quashing the order of punishment passed by the Disciplinary Authority on 21.05.2016, remitted the matter for disposal by causing fresh enquiry maximum within a period of 6(six) months and on the face of such order passed on 12.07.2017, the Page 3 of 6 // 4 // self-same Appellate Authority passed a further order on 21.05.2019 by confirming the order of punishment and also confirmed the same vide order dated 04.07.2023 under Annexure-30, the Writ Petition was filed inter alia with a prayer to quash the order of punishment passed on 21.05.2016 under Annexure-22 and order dated 04.07.2023 passed under Annexure-30. 5.4. However, this Court taking into account the initial order passed by the Appellate Authority under Annexure-23, wherein the appellate authority while quashing the order of punishment passed on 21.05.2016 under Annexure-22, remitted the matter for fresh enquiry and disposal, has passed an order on 21.05.2019 under Annexure-27 by confirming the order of punishment and thereafter dismissed the Review vide order dated 04.07.2023 under Annexure- 30, quashed the orders issued under Annexure-27 and 30, directing the Disciplinary Authority to take up the proceeding by causing fresh enquiry and to dispose of the same in accordance with law and in terms of order dated 12.07.2017. 5.5. It is accordingly contended that prayer for modification so filed is completely mis-conceived and is not entertainable. 6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and considering the submission made, this Court finds that Page 4 of 6 // 5 // in the proceeding initiated against the petitioner, the Disciplinary Authority while disposing the proceeding, impose the punishment vide order dated 21.05.2016 under Annexure-22. 6.1. While considering the appeal so filed, the Appellate Authority vide order dated 12.07.2017 under Annexure-23 while quashing the order of punishment, directed the Disciplinary Authority to cause fresh enquiry and to dispose of the proceeding maximum within a period of 6(six) months. 6.2. Thereafter, when the Appellate Authority issued a notice for disposal of the appeal and on the face of the objection raised by the petitioner, the Appellate Authority vide order dated 21.05.2019 under Annexure-27, upheld the order of punishment so passed on 21.05.2016 and the same was also confirmed while dismissing the Review vide order dated 04.07.2023 under Annexure-30, the Writ Petition was filed challenging the order of punishment passed on 21.05.2016. 6.3. This Court taking into account the nature of order passed on 12.07.2017 under Annexure-23 by the Appellate Authority took a view that on the face of such order passed by the Appellate Authority, no further order could have been passed in the appeal by confirming the order of punishment vide order dated Page 5 of 6 // 6 // 21.05.2019 under Annexure-27 and thereafter dismissing the Review Petition so filed by the petitioner vide order dated 04.07.2023 under Annexure-30. 6.4. It is therefore the view of this Court that, the application for modification of order dated 18.11.2025, so filed by the petitioner is completely misconceived and this Court is not inclined to entertain the same and dismiss the application for modification. However, this Court is inclined to correct the cause title so far as the Case No. is concerned, in order dated 18.11.2025 by taking Writ Petition No. as “W.P.(C) No.21965 of 2025” in place of “W.P.(C) No.21965 of 2022”. 7. I.A. accordingly stands rejected with the aforesaid modification. (Biraja Prasanna Satapathy) Judge Basudev Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BASUDEV SWAIN Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Date: 20-May-2026 16:07:44 Page 6 of 6