Orissa High Court
Bharat Chandra Sethi vs Ceo on 2 September, 2025
Author: Biraja Prasanna Satapathy
Bench: Biraja Prasanna Satapathy
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
WP(C) No. 8661 of 2022
Bharat Chandra Sethi ..... Petitioner
Mr. K.K. Rath, Advocate
-versus-
CEO, TPNODL, Balasore & ..... Opposite Parties
Ors. Mr. B. Dash, Advocate
(Opp. Party Nos. 1 to 4)
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY
ORDER
02.09.2025
1. This matter is taken up through hybrid mode.
2. Heard Mr. K.K. Rath, learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner
and Mr. B. Dash, learned counsel appearing for Opp. Party Nos. 1 to
4.
3. The present writ petition has been filed inter alia with the following
prayer:-
"Therefore, it is prayed that this Hon'ble Court
would be graciously pleased to admit the writ application,
call for the records, issue notice to Opp. parties calling
upon them to show cause as to why the order dated
21.02.2015 shall not be set aside and the petitioner shall
not be allowed to regularize the suspension period of
service as duty period after acquittal in the Criminal case
vide ST case No. 305/2016 and as to why the appeal
pending before the Opp. party No. 1 since 2020 keeping in
view of the judgment dated 27.06.2019 in S.T. case No.
305/2016 shall not be disposed of in accordance with law.
Falling to show cause or showing insufficient cause make
the rule absolute.
And pass any order/orders as would be deemed fit
and proper in the circumstances of the case.
And for this act of kindness the petitioner as in duty
bound shall ever pray."
4. Learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner contended that against
the order of punishment passed in disciplinary proceeding No. 7
dtd.10.07.2012, Petitioner initially preferred an appeal before the then
Superintending Engineer-Opp. Party No. 2 under Annexure-5 on
31.12.2016. Subsequently, when the Petitioner was acquitted in the
criminal proceeding, which was also the charge in the disciplinary
proceeding, Petitioner made an application before the Authorized
Officer, NESCO Utility Service under Annexure-6 series. As no
decision was taken in the appeal, the present writ petition was filed.
5. Learned counsel appearing for the Opp. Parties on the other hand
contended that both the appeals in the meantime have already been
disposed of vide order dtd.31.12.2016 and 15.05.2020 respectively
vide Annexure-A to the counter affidavit. It is contended that since
both the appeals have already been disposed of and the said order is
not under challenge, Petitioner is not eligible and entitled to get any
relief as prayed for.
6. To the submission made by the learned counsel appearing for the
Opp. Parties, learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner contended
that since both the proceedings were initiated on self-same charges and
Petitioner has been acquitted in the criminal proceeding, he be given
liberty to make a fresh application before Opp. Party No. 1 for
consideration of his grievance.
7. Having heard learned counsel appearing for the Parties and
considering the submissions made, this Court while disposing the writ
petition, permits the Petitioner to make a fresh application before Opp.
Party No. 1 with regard to the punishment imposed by the then
Executive Engineer vide order dt.21.01.2015 under Annexure-4.
7.1. It is observed that if any such application will be moved within a
period of two (2) weeks hence, Opp. Party No. 1 shall take a lawful
decision on the same within a period of two (2) months thereafter.
However, it is observed that if no such application is moved within the
aforesaid period of two (2) weeks, benefit of this order will
automatically lapse.
8. The writ petition is disposed of accordingly.
(BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY)
Judge
Sneha
Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack
