[Cites 2, Cited by 0]
Orissa High Court
Surendra Mohankudo vs State Of Odisha ..... Opposite Party on 30 January, 2026
Author: Aditya Kumar Mohapatra
Bench: Aditya Kumar Mohapatra
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
WP(C) No.32577 of 2025
Surendra Mohankudo ..... Petitioner
Represented by Adv. -
Ms. Anima Kumari Dei
-versus-
State Of Odisha ..... Opposite Party
Represented by Adv. -
Mr. Sarbeswar Behera,
AGA
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADITYA KUMAR MOHAPATRA
ORDER
30.01.2026
Order No.
03. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid mode.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the Petitioner as well as the
learned Additional Government Advocate for the State-Opposite
Parties. Perused the writ petition as well as the documents annexed
thereto.
3. By filing the present writ petition, the Petitioner has sought for
the following reliefs:-
It is, therefore humbly prayed that this Hon'ble
Court may graciously be pleased to issue rule NISI
calling upon the opposite parties to show cause
And in the event the opposite parties fails to show
cause of show insufficient cause make the rule absolute
and issue writ of mandamus commanding the opposite
parties to quash the Departmental proceeding initiated
against the petitioner vide Annexure-1 series Office
Memorandum 142 dated 07.01.2019.
And pass any other appropriate order/orders,
direction/directions as deem fit and proper."
4. Learned counsel for the Petitioner, at the outset, contended that
the Petitioner was initially appointed as a Junior Clerk on 02.08.1999
in the office of the Inspector of Schools, Ganjam Circle, Berhampur.
Thereafter, he was promoted to the post of Senior Clerk w.e.f.
27.09.2013. While he was working as Senior Clerk, the Petitioner
was entangled in Berhampur Vigilance P.S. Case No.46 of 2018. In
the above noted Vigilance P.S. Case, charge sheet was filed on
31.10.2018 for commission of offences under the Prevention of
Corruption Act. Learned counsel for the Petitioner, at this juncture,
contended that on the self-same allegation, a departmental
proceeding was also initiated against the present Petitioner on
07.01.2019. In course of her argument, learned counsel for the
Petitioner contended that in the meantime the Petitioner faced trial in
the Vigilance Case before the learned Special Judge, Vigilance,
Berhampur for commission of offence under Section 13(2) read with
13(1)(d) and 7 of the P.C. Act, 1988. By virtue of the judgment
dated 26.06.2023 passed in T.R. Case No.20 of 2019 by the learned
Special Judge, Vigilance, Berhampur, the Petitioner has been
acquitted. She further contended that after acquittal of the Petitioner
in the Vigilance Case, he has approached the Opposite Parties on
several occasions to drop the departmental proceeding as such
departmental proceeding has been initiated on the self-same charge
for which the Petitioner faced trial in the Vigilance Case. Despite
such approach by the Petitioner to the Opposite Parties, the Opposite
Parties have not taken any decision with regard to the pending
Departmental Proceeding, as a result of which, the Petitioner is
suffering. Being aggrieved by such inaction of the Opposite Parties
in taking such decision on the representation of the Petitioner to drop
the departmental proceeding, the Petitioner has approached this
Court by filing the present writ petition.
5. Learned counsel for the State, on the other hand, contended
that although he has no instruction in the matter, however, in the
event the Petitioner has already approached the Opposite Parties for
redressal of his grievance and no final decision has been taken on
such representation of the Petitioner, he will have no objection in the
event this Court directs the Opposite Parties to consider and redress
the grievance of the Petitioner strictly in accordance with law and
within a stipulated period of time. Learned counsel for the State
further contended that although Petitioner states that he has
approached the Opposite Parties, however there is nothing on record
to come to a definite conclusion that any such representation has
been filed before the Opposite Parties.
6. Considering the submissions made by the learned counsels
appearing for the respective parties and on a careful examination of
the materials on record as well as the background facts of the present
case, further keeping in view the limited nature of the grievance
involved in the present writ petition, this Court deems it proper to
dispose of the present writ petition at the stage of admission by
granting liberty to the Petitioner to approach the Opposite Party
No.2-District Education Officer-cum-Chairman, District Promotion
Committee, Gajapati, Paralakhemundi by filing a detailed
representation taking therein all the grounds along with all
supporting documents as well as the judgment relied upon by the
Petitioner in support of his contention within two weeks from today.
In such eventuality, the Opposite Party No.2 shall consider the
representation of the Petitioner strictly in accordance with law and
by taking into consideration the judgments relied upon by the
Petitioner in support of his contention and dispose of the
representation of the Petitioner by passing a speaking and reasoned
order within a period of eight weeks from the date of filing such
representation. The final decision so taken on the representation be
communicated to the Petitioner within ten days thereafter.
7. With the aforesaid observation and direction, the writ petition
stands disposed of.
( A.K. Mohapatra )
Judge
Debasis
