[Cites 0, Cited by 0]
Orissa High Court
Padmabati Jena vs State Of Odisha & Ors. ..... Opposite ... on 17 February, 2026
Author: Biraja Prasanna Satapathy
Bench: Biraja Prasanna Satapathy
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
WP(C) No. 24070 of 2022
Padmabati Jena ..... Petitioner
Ms. B.K. Pattanaik, Advocate
-versus-
State of Odisha & Ors. ..... Opposite Parties
Mr. S.P. Das, ASC
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY
ORDER
17.02.2026
1. This matter is taken up through hybrid mode.
2. Heard Ms. B.K. Pattanaik, learned counsel appearing for the
Petitioner and Mr. S.P. Das, learned Addl. Standing Counsel
appearing for the Opp. parties.
3. The present writ petition has been filed inter alia with the following
prayer:-
"It is therefore prayed that this Hon'ble Court may
be pleased to stay the departmental proceeding under
Annexure-3 till disposal of the writ petition and pass such
other order/orders as would be deemed fit and proper;
And for this act of kindness, the petitioner duty
bound shall ever pray."
4. It is contended that Petitioner was proceeded with a proceeding
vide Memorandum dtd.20.03.2020 under Annexure-1. After being
served with the Memorandum, Petitioner also filed her reply under
Annexure-2. But thereafter without disposing the proceeding so
initiated under Annexure-1, when the impugned proceeding was
initiated on self-same charges vide Memorandum dtd.01.02.2022
under Annexure-3, the present writ petition was filed challenging
such initiation of the proceeding during pendency of the earlier
proceeding initiated under Annexure-1 on self-same charges.
4.1. It is contended that this Court while issuing notice of the matter,
passed an interim order by granting liberty to Opp. Party No. 2 to
conclude the proceeding initiated under Annexure-1 and by staying
the proceeding initiated under Annexure-3.
4.2. It is contended that since the proceeding under Annexure-1 was
duly instituted and Petitioner submitted her reply under Annexure-2,
after initiation of the proceeding, there is no requirement to initiate a
fresh proceeding with self-same charges under Annexure-3. It is
accordingly contended that initiation of the proceeding under
Annexure-3 with self-same charges is not permissible in the eye of
law. It is however contended that because of the interim order passed
on 21.09.2022, no progress has been made to the proceeding initiated
under Annexure-3.
5. Mr. S.P. Das, learned Addl. Standing Counsel on the other hand
made his submission basing on the stand taken in the counter
affidavit so filed by the Opp. Parties. It is contended that after
initiation of the proceeding under Annexure-1 when the enquiry
officer so appointed, discontinued the enquiry, the 2nd proceeding
under Annexure-3 was initiated against the Petitioner, though on self-
same charges.
5.1. It is contended that since the enquiry officer did not proceed with
the enquiry with regard to the charges framed in the proceeding
dtd.20.03.2020 under Annexure-1, Opp. Party No. 2 initiated the 2nd
proceeding vide Memorandum dtd.01.02.2022 under Annexure-3 in
terms of letter dt.14.09.2022 under Annexure-B/3. It is accordingly
contended that no illegality or irregularity can be found with such
action of Opp. Party o. 2.
6. To the submission made by the learned Addl. Standing Counsel,
learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner made further submission
contending inter alia that since prior to initiation of the 2nd proceeding
under Annexure-3, proceeding initiated under Annexure-1 was never
dropped with passing of an appropriate order, on self-same issue the
2nd proceeding could not have been imposed. It is also contended that
letter dtd.14.09.2022 was issued much after initiation of the
proceeding on 01.02.2022. Hence, the said document cannot be
treated as a permission to Opp. Party No. 2 to initiate the 2nd
proceeding.
7. Having heard learned counsel appearing for the Parties and
considering the submissions made, this Court finds that while in
service Petitioner was proceeded with in a proceeding vide
Memorandum dtd.20.03.2020 under Annexure-1. As found,
Petitioner submitted his reply to the charges on 15.04.2020 under
Annexure-2. But without disposing the proceeding in accordance
with law, on self-same issue the 2nd proceeding was initiated vide
Memorandum dtd.01.02.2022 under Annexure-3.
7.1. Since prior to initiation of the 2nd proceeding, proceeding
initiated under Annexure-1 was never dropped with passing of an
appropriate order, it is the view of this Court that the 2nd proceeding
could not have been initiated with self-same charges. This Court is
also unable to accept the contention raised by the learned Addl.
Standing Counsel, that because of discontinuance of the enquiry by
the enquiry officer in the proceeding initiated vide Memorandum
dtd.20.03.2020 under Annexure-1, the 2nd proceeding was initiated
under Annexure-3.
7.2. It is also the view of this Court that if the enquiry officer did not
continue with the enquiry in the proceeding under Annexure-1, there
was no bar on the part of the disciplinary authority, to appoint a fresh
enquiry officer and to conduct the enquiry. Instead of doing that,
intuition of the 2nd proceeding on self-same charges under Annexure-
3, as per the considered view of this Court is not permissible.
7.3. In view of the aforesaid analysis, this Court while quashing the
2nd proceeding so initiated vide Memorandum dtd.01.02.2022 under
Annexure-3, permits Opp. Party No. 2 to dispose of the proceeding
initiated vide Memorandum dtd.20.03.2020 under Annexure-1 in
accordance with law and by conducting due enquiry.
8. The writ petition accordingly stands disposed of with the aforesaid
observation and direction.
(BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY)
Judge
Sneha
Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack
