[Cites 5, Cited by 0]
Orissa High Court
Rohit Kumar Sahu vs D.G. & I.G. Of Police on 23 December, 2025
Author: Mruganka Sekhar Sahoo
Bench: Mruganka Sekhar Sahoo
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
W.A. NO.446 OF 2024
An application under Clause-10 of letters patent read with
Order-II(1) of Chapter-8 of Orissa High Court Rules, 1948.
Rohit Kumar Sahu .... Appellant
-Versus-
D.G. & I.G. of Police, Orissa, .... Respondents
Cuttack & Others
Advocates appeared in this case:
For Appellant : Ms. Babita Kumari Patnaik,
Advocate
For Respondents : Mr. P.K. Mohanty,
Additional Standing Counsel
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANASH RANJAN PATHAK
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MRUGANKA SEKHAR SAHOO
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Date of hearing and Judgment: 23.12.2025
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PER MRUGANKA SEKHAR SAHOO, J.
1. The appellant is before this Court challenging the order
dated 6th March, 2024 passed by the learned Single Judge in
I.A. No. 227 of 2023 arising out of WPC(OAC) No.2489 of
2005, disposed of by order dated 26th September, 2022 and
order dated 26th September, 2022 disposing of the said
W.P.C.(OAC) No.2489 of 2005.
2. The orders dated 26th September, 2022 passed in
W.P.C.(OAC) No.2489 of 2005 and the order dated 6th March,
2024 passed in I.A. No.227 of 2023 arising out of WPC (OAC)
No.2489 of 2005 are reproduced herein:-
Order dated 26.09.2022:
"04. 1.This matter is taken up through hybrid
arrangement.
2. None appears for the petitioner at the time of call.
3. Hence, it seems that the petitioner is not interested to
pursue the matter.
4.Accordingly, this WPC(OAC) is disposed of for non-
prosecution.
5.If any cause of action arises in future, the petitioner is
at liberty to approach this Court within a period of three
months from today."
Order dated 06.03.2024 passed in I.A. No.227 of
2023:
"5.1.This matter is taken up through hybrid
arrangement.
2.Heard.
3.This I.A. has been filed by the Petitioner for recalling
of the order dated 26.09.2022 passed by this Court in
WPC (OAC) No.2489 of 2005.
4.Considering the submissions made by the learned
counsel for the Petitioner and the averments made in
the I.A., this Court is of the view that the Petitioner has
not made out a case for recalling of the order dated
26.09.2022.
5.Accordingly, the I.A. is dismissed."
3. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner
that the cause of action arose in the year 2004 and the
appellant approached the learned Odisha Administrative
Tribunal by filing O.A. No.2489(C) of 2005 on 30th December,
2005.
Thereafter, upon abolition of the Tribunal, the O.A. was
transferred and registered before this Court on 9th July, 2021
as Writ Petition, that was taken up by the learned Single
Judge and disposed of by the order dated 26th September,
2022 as we have indicated above.
4. On perusal of the case record, as is available before us,
we find that the Writ Petition contains on record, counters
filed by all the respondents/opposite parties dated 18th
August, 2006, counter filed by the respondents/opposite
parties No.1 & 2 and the rejoinder dated 16th August, 2022.
The reply to the rejoinder on behalf of the opposite party No.3
has been filed on 15th September, 2022.
Apparently, the pleadings available on record are in
detail and complete for consideration and adjudication of the
matter on merits.
5. The O.A./Writ Petition was filed in the year 2005
challenging the order of punishment dated 7th June, 2004
removing the petitioner/appellant w.e.f. 7th June, 2004 from
service, when he was working as "E-coy', OSAP 4th Battalion,
Rourkela". The order dated 26th September, 2022 passed by
the learned Single Judge has disposed of the petition for non-
prosecution.
6. The learned counsel for the appellant relies on the
decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rafiq and
Another v. Munshilal & Another: (1981) 2 SCC 788 and
Malkiat Singh & Another v. Joginder Singh & Others:
AIR 1998 SC 258, to contend that as per ratio laid down in
the said cases, none appearance of the counsel for the
petitioner should not result in suffering of the petitioner.
In Malkiat Singh (supra), the facts were that the
learned counsel appearing had pleaded no instruction. In
Rafiq (supra), the learned counsel did not appear when the
matter was listed before the High Court. In both the cases,
the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that party should not
suffer for non-appearance of counsel/pleading no instruction
by the counsel for the party.
7. Learned counsel Ms. Patnaik for the appellant also refers
to the judgment rendered by Coordinate Bench of this Court
in Umesh Chandra Singh Vs. Union of India & Others:
2014(II) OLR 750; wherein the Coordinate Bench has
expressed similar view that litigating party before the Court
should not suffer due to any act of the lawyer, may be due to
non-appearance or may be lack of pleadings or lack of
instruction.
The Coordinate Bench in Umesh Chandra Singh
(supra), for it's conclusions has relied on the decisions
rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in AIR 2014 SC 1141:
Chennai v. T.T. Murali; AIR 2014 SC 1612 : Brijesh v.
State of Haryana and (2000) 10 SCC 264: Mahakali v.
R.C. Subramanyam.
8. The learned Additional Standing Counsel in response
concedes to the fact that there has been no merit adjudication
by the learned Single Judge, though the appellant/petitioner
had challenged his removal from service which involves civil
consequence imposed upon him after a Disciplinary
Proceeding.
9. In our considered view such challenge needs to be
adjudicated by the Court, more so, when the pleadings are
complete.
10. In view of the above discussions, we allow the appeal.
Order dated 26th September, 2022 passed in WPC(OAC)
No.2489 of 2005 and order dated 6th March, 2024 in I.A.
No.227 of 2023 passed by the learned Single Judge are
hereby set aside.
11. The WPC (OAC) No.2489 of 2005 is restored to file.
We also take note of the fact that in the whole process,
the matter has been kept pending for more than 20 years, the
cause of action arising in 2004.
The learned counsel for the petitioner shall have liberty
to move the assigned Bench for listing of the matter.
Now no costs.
Manash Ranjan Pathak
Judge
Mruganka Sekhar Sahoo
Judge
Orissa High Court, Cuttack
The 23rd December, 2025/Narayan/Ranjeeta
