Page 1 of 2. IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C) No. 23671 of 2015 Sudhansu Sekhar Rayaguru ..... Petitioner Mr. S. Sekhar, Adv. On behalf of Mr. S.D. Routray, Adv. -versus- State of Odisha & Ors. ..... Opposite Parties Mr. A. Tripathy, AGA Mr. S.S. Mohanty, Adv. For O.P. Nos.2 & 3 CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY ORDER 02.07.2026 Order No. 04 1. This matter is taken up through hybrid mode. 2. Heard learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner and Mr. S.S. Mohanty, learned counsel for O.P. Nos.2 and 3. 3. In course of hearing, learned counsel for the Petitioner contended that Petitioner is only aggrieved with regard to the use of the word ‘misconduct’ in the order of termination issued on 18.11.2015 under Annexure-7 by Opp. Party No.2. 3.1. It is contended that because of the use of the word ‘misconduct’ in the order to termination, Petitioner is deprived to get further engagement in any other establishment. 3.2. It is also contended that use of the word ‘misconduct’ was not required to be used while terminating the petitioner from his work basing on the show cause issued under Annexure-5 and there was no material to that effect. Page 2 of 2. 3.3. It is accordingly contended that the word ‘misconduct’ be expunged from the impugned order of termination so passed under Annexure-7. 4. Mr. S.S. Mohanty, learned counsel while supporting the impugned order contended that since in terms of the agreement signed in between the Petitioner and Opp. Party No.2 & 3, Petitioner after being issued with show cause on 23.06.2015 under Annexure-5, was terminated with due consideration of the reply filed by him on 19.10.2015 under Annexure-6, no illegality or irregularity can be found. It is however fairly contended that if the Petitioner is otherwise aggrieved with the use of the word ‘misconduct’, he can make an application to that effect to expunge the same. 5. Having heard learned counsel for the Parties and considering the submission made, this Court while disposing of the Writ Petition without interfering with the impugned order of termination so passed on 18.11.2015 under Annexure-7, grants liberty to make an appropriate application before Opp. Party No.1 with a prayer to expunge the word ‘misconduct’ from the impugned order. 6. It is observed that if any such application is moved within a period of three (3) weeks hence, Opp. Party No. 1 shall do well to take a lawful decision on the same within a further period of three (3) months from the date of receipt of such application. The order so passed by Opp. Party No. 1 be communicated to the Petitioner. 7. Accordingly, the Writ Petition stands disposed of. (BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY) Judge Jyoti