Page 1 of 7. IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK WP(C) No. 1501 of 2012 CNR No. ODHC010216752012 Pradeep Ku. Naik ..... Petitioner Mr. J.K. Rath, Sr. Advocate -versus- State of Odisha & Ors. ..... Opposite Parties Mr. A. Tripathy, AGA Mr. S.S. Kanungo, Advocate (Opp. Party Nos. 2 & 3) CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY ORDER 03.09.2026 Order No.10 1. This matter is taken up through hybrid mode. 2. Heard Mr. J.K. Rath, learned Sr. Counsel appearing for the Petitioner and Mr. S.S. Kanungo, learned counsel appearing for Opp. Party Nos. 2 & 3. Pursuant to order dtd.01.09.2026, learned counsel appearing for Opp. Party Nos. 1 & 2 produced the enquiry report dt.25.11.2011 in Court. The same be kept in record. 3. The present writ petition has been filed inter alia with the following prayer:- “Under the above circumstance, it is therefore humbly prayed that this Hon'ble Court may be graciously pleased to issue a writ in the nature of writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, direction or order by quashing the charges framed against the petitioner Director the Managing vide by Annexures 8, 15, and 26 and the appointment of 4 the Inquiring Officer by the Managing Director vide letter and 16.6.2010 vide 5.8.2009 dated Annexures 12 and 18 and the Page 2 of 7. second show cause notice served on the petitioner vide Annexure-32 to the writ application as they are passed by a person who has neither authority nor jurisdiction in the matter and since the same is made in contravention to the Conduct, Discipline and Appeal Rules read with Recruitment and Promotion Rules, 1984 of the Federation. And for this act of kindness, as in duty bound, the petitioner shall ever pray.” 4. Learned Sr. Counsel appearing for the Petitioner contended that Petitioner while in service, the proceeding was initiated against him on 06.05.2009 under Annexure-8 by Opp. Party No. 3. In the said proceeding Petitioner not only filed his reply but also participated in the enquiry after appointment of the enquiry officer. 4.1. It is contended that subsequently while the enquiry was going on in respect of the proceeding initiated on 06.05.2009, additional proceeding was initiated against the Petitioner on 28.04.2010 under Annexure-15 and another additional proceeding under Annexure-26 dtd.13.12.2010. 4.2. It is the main contention of the learned Sr. Counsel appearing for the Petitioner that additional charges framed against the Petitioner on 28.04.2010 and 13.12.2010 under Annexure-15 & 26 are in addition to the charges, originally framed against the Petitioner vide Memorandum dt.06.05.2009 under Annexure-8. Basing on such additional charges so framed under Annexure-15 & 26, no show-cause could have been issued so issued on 04.06.2012 under Annexure-32, by treating the same as a separate proceeding. 4.3. It is contended that this Court while issuing notice of the matter, passed an interim order on 06.07.2012 by staying the operation of the Page 3 of 7. impugned notice dt.04.06.2012 and no further action has been taken on the same. A further submission was also made that basing on the enquiry report submitted in the proceeding dtd.06.05.2009, the proceeding was dropped vide order dt.05.04.2013, so enclosed to the additional affidavit filed by Opp. Party Nos. 2 and 3 under Annexure- I/2. 4.4. It is contended that since in the proceeding initiated on 06.05.2009 under Annexure-8, Petitioner basing on the enquiry report so submitted on 25.11.2011, was acquitted from the charges and the proceeding was dropped, the show-cause dt.04.06.2012 which is impugned in the present writ petition, could not have been issued, taking into account the additional charges framed against him under Annexure-15 & 26 to the original proceeding dt.06.05.2009 as a separate proceeding. It is accordingly contended that the impugned show-cause notice issued under Annexure-32 is liable to be set aside. 5. Mr. S.S. Kanungo, learned counsel appearing for the Opp. Party- OMFED on the other hand contended that, originally a proceeding was initiated against the Petitioner on 06.05.2009 under Annexure-8 and in the said proceeding one R.N. Jena was appointed as the enquiry officer vide order dtd.05.08.2009. During pendency of the said proceeding, a fresh proceeding was initiated against the Petitioner on 28.04.2010 under Annexure-15 and additional charges to the said proceeding was framed against the Petitioner on13.12.2010 under Annexure-26. 5.1. It is contended that in the 2nd proceeding initiated under Annexure- 15, a wrong was committed by treating it as an additional charge to the original proceeding. In fact proceeding initiated under Annexure-15, with the additional charges under Annexure-26, is a separate Page 4 of 7. proceeding initiated against the Petitioner. Not only that after initiation of such a separate proceeding on 28.04.2010 under Annexure-15, another enquiry officer was appointed vide order dtd.12.06.2010 under Annexure-18. Petitioner without raising any objection, not only participated in the enquiry by filing his written statement but also the enquiry officer continued with the enquiry and found the Petitioner guilty of the charges. Only when 2nd show-cause was issued in the proceeding dt.28.04.2010, proposing the punishment on 04.06.2012 under Annexure-32, the present writ petition was filed inter alia challenging the 2nd show-cause and so also the appointment of the enquiry officer vide order dtd.12.06.2010 under Annexure-18. 5.2. It is contended that since Annexure-15 is a separate proceeding and Opp. Party Nos. 2 & 3 engaged another enquiry officer, which was never objected to by the Petitioner at any point of time and Petitioner in the alternate after filing his written statement to the charges, participated in the enquiry, it has to be held that Petitioner admitted the initiation of the separate proceeding vide memorandum dtd.28.04.2010 under Annexure-15. 5.3. It is also fairly contended that in the said proceeding initiated under Annexure-15 additional charges were framed on 13.12.2010 under Annexure-26. It is further contended that in the other proceeding initiated against the Petitioner under Annexure-8 on 06.05.2009, since the enquiry officer did not find the Petitioner guilty of the charges, basing on such enquiry report submitted on 25.11.2011 the proceeding was dropped vide order dtd.05.04.2013 under Annexure-I/2. 5.4. It is further contended that in the enquiry so conducted basing on which proceeding dt.06.05.2009 was dropped, the enquiry officer never Page 5 of 7. dealt with the charges framed against the Petitioner vide memorandum dtd.28.04.2010 under Annexure-15 and additional charges framed to the said proceeding on 13.12.2010 under Annexure26. 5.5. Making all these submissions, learned counsel appearing for Opp. Party Nos. 2 & 3 contended that since Annexure-15 is a separate proceeding with additional charges framed under Annexure-26 and a separate enquiry officer was appointed to enquire into the charges vide order dtd.02.06.2010 under Annexure-18, with no objection being raised by the Petitioner to such action of Opp. Party Nos. 2 & 3 at any point of time till issuance of the impugned show-cause dt.04.06.2012 under Annexure-32, the writ petition filed challenging the show-cause issued on 04.06.2012 under Annexure-32, in respect of the proceeding initiated under Annexure-15 with the additional charges under Annexure-26 is not maintainable. It is accordingly prayed for that Petitioner be directed to file his reply to the show-cause. However, in view of the interim order, no further action has been taken in the proceeding. 6. Having heard learned counsel appearing for the Parties and considering the submissions made, this Court finds that Petitioner while in service, a proceeding was initiated against the Petitioner on 06.05.2009 under Annexure-8. In the said proceeding one R.N. Jena was appointed as the enquiry officer vide order dtd.05.08.2009. Petitioner in the said proceeding not only filed his written statement of defence but also participated in the enquiry. 6.1. It is however found that subsequently another proceeding was initiated on 28.04.2010 under Annexure-15 with additional charges on 13.12.2010 under Annexure-26. On such initiation of the proceeding on Page 6 of 7. 28.04.2010, Opp. Party Nos. 2 & 3 appointed a fresh enquiry officer vide order dtd.12.06.2010 under Annexure-18. Petitioner never raised any objection to such appointment of another enquiry officer to conduct the proceeding initiated under Annexure-15, with additional charges under Annexure-26. Instead Petitioner participated in the proceeding and also cooperated with the enquiry officer. After receipt of the enquiry report in the said proceeding initiated under Annexure-15 with additional charges under Annexure-26, Petitioner is before this Court challenging the 2nd show-cause issued on 04.06.2012 under Annexure- 13. 6.2. It is also found from the record that in the other proceeding initiated against the Petitioner on 06.05.2009, the enquiry officer after conducting the enquiry submitted the report on 25.11.2011 (which was produced in Court today) by holding the Petitioner not guilty of the charges. Basing on such enquiry report submitted on 25.11.2011, the proceeding initiated against the Petitioner on 06.05.2009 under Annexure-8 was dropped vide order dtd.05.04.2013, so enclosed as Annexure-I/2. 6.3. This Court after going through the enquiry report dt.25.11.2011 finds that, no enquiry was made with regard to the charges framed against the Petitioner under Annexure-15 with the additional charges under Annexure-26. Not only that this Court after going through the materials available on record and the enquiry report dt.25.11.2011 so produced in Court today, is of the view that charges framed under Annexure-15 and the additional charges framed under Annexure-26 is in relation to a separate proceeding. It is also the view of this Court that since after initiation of the separate proceeding under Annexure-15 with Page 7 of 7. appointment of a different Enquiry Officer vide order dt.12.06.2010 under Annexure-18, Petitioner participated in the enquiry and never raised his objection, Petitioner is not permitted to challenge the 2nd show-cause issued in the said proceeding on 04.06.2012 under Annexure-32. 6.4. Therefore, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the show- cause so issued on 04.06.2012 under Annexure-32. However, considering the fact that Petitioner was protected by an interim order, it is observed that if Petitioner so desires, he can file his reply to the 2nd show-cause dt.04.06.2012 within a period of six (6) weeks from today. It is open for the disciplinary authority-Opp. Party No. 3 to take a decision in accordance with law in the proceeding dt.28.04.2010 with additional charges dt.13.12.2010 under Annexure-15 and 26, in which this Court expresses no opinion. 6.5. It is however observed that, if Petitioner does not file his reply to the impugned show-cause dt.04.06.2012 within the time fixed by this Court, Opp. Party No. 3 will be free to proceed and dispose of the proceeding in accordance with law. 7. The writ petition accordingly stands disposed of. Interim order passed earlier stands vacated. (BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY) Judge Sneha