[Cites 0, Cited by 0]
Orissa High Court
Satya Narayan Sahoo vs State Of Odisha & Ors on 19 March, 2026
Author: Biraja Prasanna Satapathy
Bench: Biraja Prasanna Satapathy
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
W.P.(C) No.16836 of 2024
Satya Narayan Sahoo .... Petitioner
Mr. B. Routray, Sr. Advocate along with
Mr. J. Biswal, Advocate
-versus-
State of Odisha & Ors.
.... Opposite Parties
Mr. S. Das, ASC
CORAM:
JUSTICE BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY
ORDER
19.03.2026
Order No.
08. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid
Arrangement (Virtual/Physical) Mode.
2. Heard learned counsel appearing for the Parties.
3. The present Writ Petition has been filed inter alia
challenging the order dtd.05.06.2017 so passed by the
disciplinary authority-Opposite Party No.2 under
Annexure-15, so confirmed by the appellate authority
vide order dtd.28.05.2024 under Annexure-14 of
Opposite Party No.1.
4. While assailing the impugned order of
punishment so passed by the disciplinary authority,
confirmed by the appellate authority vide order under
Annexures-14 and 15, Mr. B. Routray, learned Senior
Counsel appearing for the Petitioner vehemently
contended that since the impugned order has been
// 2 //
passed in violation to the order passed by the Tribunal
on 25.01.2020 in O.A No.892 (C) of 2014 so available
under Annexure-11, the impugned order of
punishment so passed are not sustainable in the eye of
law. Taking this Court to the order passed by the
Tribunal it is contended that since in terms of the said
order the proceeding was not disposed of within a
period of one month from the date of communication,
no such punishment could have been imposed after
expiry of the aforesaid period of one (1) month, vide
order dtd.05.06.2017 under Annexure-15.
4.1. It is also contended that in the order under
Annexure-1, the Disciplinary Authority-Opposite Party
No.2 admits about the order passed by the Tribunal.
4.2. It is accordingly contended that since in terms of
the order of the Tribunal, the proceeding was not
disposed of within a period of one (1) month from the
date of communication of the order, the impugned
order passed under Annexure-15, confirmed by the
appellate authority under Annexure-14 requires
interference of this Court.
5. Mr. S. Das, learned Addl. Standing Counsel for
the State basing on the materials available on record
contended that even though the Tribunal vide order
dtd.29.03.2017 under Annexure-11 in O.A. No.892(C)
of 2014 directed for disposal of the proceeding within a
period of one (1) month from the date of
// 3 //
communication, failing which the proceeding will be
treated as dropped, but after such disposal of the
matter and on receipt of the order by the disciplinary
authority on 17.04.2017, Opposite Party No.2 moved
an application before the Tribunal, seeking two (2)
months' time to conclude the proceeding on
04.05.2017.
5.1. It is contended that such an application though
was registered as M.P. No.508(C) of 2017 before the
Tribunal, which was functioning at the relevant point
of time, but the said M.P was never taken up with
passing of any appropriate order.
5.2. It is accordingly contended that since an
application was filed seeking extension of time for
disposal of the proceeding and the said MP was never
taken up with passing of any order, on bona fide
impression that extension of time will be allowed, the
proceeding was disposed of by the disciplinary
authority-Opposite Party No.2 vide order
dtd.05.06.2017 under Annexure-15.
5.3. It is accordingly contended that no illegality or
irregularity can be found with the impugned order of
punishment passed by the disciplinary authority under
Annexure-15, so confirmed by the appellate authority
vide order dtd.28.05.2024 under Annexure-14.
// 4 //
6. To the submission made by learned Addl.
Standing Counsel, Mr. B. Routray, learned Senior
Counsel appearing for the Petitioner contended inter
alia that, since Petitioner is at the flag-end of his
career, appropriate order be passed as deem fit and
proper by this Court.
7. Having heard learned counsel appearing for the
Parties and considering the submissions made, this
Court finds that the Tribunal while disposing O.A
No.892(C) of 2014 vide order dtd.29.03.2017 under
Annexure-11, directed the disciplinary authority -
Opposite Party No.2 to dispose of the proceeding within
a period of one (1) month from the date of receipt of
this order. But after receipt of the said order on
17.04.2017 and prior to completion of the one (1)
month period, an application was filed in the said
Original Application by Opposite Party No.2 on
04.05.2017, with the prayer to allow two(2) months
further time to complete the proceeding.
7.1. As found from the record of O.A. No.892(C) of
2024 so tagged to the case record, the said application
was registered as M.P. No.508(C) of 2017. On the face
of such application being filed seeking extension of
time, the matter was disposed of vide order
dtd.05.06.2017 under Annexure-14.
7.2. Taking into account the prayer made in M.P.
No.508(C) of 2017, this Court is of the view that the
// 5 //
disciplinary authority has not violated the order passed
by the Tribunal under Annexure-11.
7.3. However, considering the materials available on
record and the nature of order passed by the Tribunal
under Annexure-11, this Court is of the view that the
proceeding is to be disposed of afresh and Petitioner be
permitted to file a fresh reply to the 2nd show cause by
taking all the grounds available to him under law.
7.4. This Court accordingly while disposing the
proceeding with quashing of the orders under
Annexure-14 and 15 permits the Petitioner to file a
fresh reply to the 2nd show cause notice on or before
10.04.2026. On such filing of the reply, Opposite Party
No.2 shall pass a fresh order in accordance with law,
without being influenced by the earlier order so passed
by him on 05.06.2017, by end of May, 2026.
Learned Addl. Standing Counsel for the State is
directed to communicate this order before Opposite
Party No.2 for compliance.
8. Accordingly, the Writ Petition stands disposed of.
(Biraja Prasanna Satapathy)
Judge
Subrat
Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACK
