Bibhuti Bhusan Nayak vs State Of Odisha And Others ..... ...
2025 Latest Caselaw 3595 Ori

Orissa High Court

Bibhuti Bhusan Nayak vs State Of Odisha And Others ..... ... on 4 February, 2025

Author: Aditya Kumar Mohapatra

Bench: Aditya Kumar Mohapatra

                      IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

                                       WP(C) No.3448 of 2025

                 Bibhuti Bhusan Nayak                  .....                   Petitioner
                                                                   Represented By Adv. -
                                                                   Akshaya Kumar Jena

                                                -versus-

                 State Of Odisha and others                .....        Opposite Parties
                                                                   Mr. M.R. Patra, ASC


                                     CORAM:
                       THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADITYA KUMAR
                                   MOHAPATRA

                                               ORDER

04.02.2025 Order No.

01. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid mode.

2. Heard learned counsel for the Petitioner as well as learned Additional Standing Counsel for the State-Opposite Parties. Perused the writ application as well as the documents annexed thereto.

3. The Petitioner has filed the present writ application with the following prayer:

"It is, therefore, humbly prayed that this Hon'ble Court may graciously be pleased to: -

(i) Admit the Writ Petition;

(ii) Call for the records,

(iii) Issue a Writ in the nature of Mandamus or any other appropriate Writ/Writs, Order/Orders

Direction/Directions directing the opposite parties particularly the opposite party no-1 to reinstate the petitioner to his post/service during the pendency of the Departmental Enquiry contemplated against him, taking into account the no objection from the Vigilance Department conveyed under Annexure-7 within a stipulated time for the interest of justice;

And pass such other Order/Orders,

Direction/Directions as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper."

4. The present writ application has been filed by the Petitioner with a prayer directing the Opposite Parties, particularly Opposite Party No.1, to reinstate the Petitioner in service during the pendency of the departmental proceedings initiated against him taking into consideration the No Objection of the Vigilance Department under Annexure-7 to the writ petition within a stipulated period of time.

5. Learned counsel for the Petitioner at the outset submitted that while the Petitioner was working as Asst. Executive Engineer, Salepur, he was entangled in a departmental proceeding. As a result, the Petitioner was placed under suspension w.e.f. 16.12.2023. Learned counsel for the Petitioner further contended that the Petitioner has been continuing under suspension since the initial date of his suspension. Although, a review was preferred in the meantime, however, the same has been rejected without considering the case of the Petitioner in its proper perspective and without taking into consideration the opinion of the Vigilance Department as well as the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ajay Kumar Choudhury

v. Union of India reported in (2015) 7 SCC 291. He further contended that although a fresh representation has been filed by the Petitioner before the Opposite Party No.1, on 31.12.2024 under Annexure-9 to the writ petition, no decision has been taken on the same. Being aggrieved by such inaction on the part of the Opposite Party No.1, the Petitioner has approached this Court by filing the present writ application.

6. Learned Additional Standing Counsel on the other hand contended that he has no instruction in the matter. He further submitted that on perusal of the writ application, it appears that the review preferred by the Petitioner earlier has been rejected. Therefore, there is no scope of any further consideration. He further submitted that in the event any representation is pending, as stated by the Petitioner, then he shall have no objection if this Court directs the Opposite Party No.1 to consider the same in accordance with law and dispose of the representation within a stipulated period of time.

7. Having heard the learned counsels appearing for the respective parties, on a careful examination of the materials on record, further keeping in view the limited nature of the grievance involved in the present writ application, this Court deems it proper to dispose of the writ petition at the stage of admission by directing the Opposite Party No.1 to consider the representation of the Petitioner under Annexure- 9 to the writ petition dated 31.12.2024, by taking into consideration the opinion of the Vigilance Department under Annexure-7 as well as the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ajay Kumar Choudhury's case (supra) within a period of four weeks from the date of communication of a certified copy of this order. The final

decision so taken be communicated to the Petitioner within a week thereafter. Further, it is made clear that in the event the Petitioner has submitted any application seeking any document from the Opposite Parties, then the same shall be considered by the Opposite Parties in accordance with law and if the law permits, the same shall be supplied to the Petitioner as expeditiously as possible.

8. With the aforesaid observations/directions, the writ application stands disposed of.

Issue urgent certified copy of this order as per Rules.

                                                      ( Aditya Kumar Mohapatra )
                                                                 Judge
S.K. Rout






            Signed by: SANTANU KUMAR ROUT                                       Page 4 of 4.

            Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack
            Date: 10-Feb-2025 18:39:14