Page 1 of 3. IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK WP(C) No.12678 of 2025 Ananta Kumar Padhan ..... Petitioner Represented By Adv. - Bidyadhar Mansing -versus- 1) State Of Odisha ..... Opposite Parties 2) D.g And I.g Of Police, Odisha 3) Dig Of Police, Sambalpur 4) Supdt. Of Police, Bolangir Represented By Adv. – Mr.D.N.Lenka,AGA CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADITYA KUMAR MOHAPATRA ORDER 15.05.2025 Order No. 02. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual /Physical Mode). 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Addl. Government Advocate for the State. Perused the writ petition as well as the counter affidavit filed by the opposite parties and the documents annexed to the respective pleadings. 3. The present writ application has been filed by the petitioner with the following prayer:- “The Petitioner most respectfully prays that this Hon’ble Court may graciously be pleased to admit the writ petition and issue Rule Nisi to the Opp.Parties to show cause. Page 2 of 3. i) As to why the charge memo against the Petitioner shall not be quashed. ii) As to why OP No.2 shall not be direct to consider the promotion of the Petitioner if he is otherwise eligible with retrospective effect. And or pass any such other order(s)/direction(s)/writ(s) as are deemed just and proper.” 4. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that due to pendency of the disciplinary proceeding, the case of the petitioner has not been considered for promotion pending finalization of such proceeding. He further contended that although the proceeding was initiated in the year, 2015 and the petitioner has already filed his written statement of defence, the proceeding has not been concluded although more than 10 years has elapsed in the meantime. Being aggrieved by the delay in concluding the proceeding and for non-consideration of his case for promotion on the ground of pendency of the disciplinary proceeding, the petitioner has approached this Court by filing the present writ application. 5. Learned Additional Government Advocate for the State, on the other hand submits that the proceeding shall be concluded within three months. However, he further submits that he does not have any up-to-date instruction whether the proceeding has been concluded in the meantime or not. 6. Considering such submissions and further taking into consideration the fact that the proceeding is pending since 2015, this Court deems it proper to dispose of the writ petition at the stage of admission by directing the opposite party No.2 Page 3 of 3. & 4, D.G. and I.G. of Police & Superintendent of Police, Balangir to conclude the proceeding within a period of six weeks from the date of production of the certified copy of this order, if the same has not been concluded as of now. Further, it is directed that in the event the proceeding is not concluded within the aforesaid six weeks period as has been directed, then it will be deemed that the proceeding is quashed by this Court and accordingly, the opposite parties shall consider the case of the petitioner for promotion by convening the review DPC within a period of six weeks thereafter. The opposite party No.2 is directed to act upon production of the certified copy of this order. The decision taken shall be communicated to the petitioner within two weeks thereafter. The petitioner is also directed to cooperate with the authorities in an early conclusion of the proceeding, if the same is still pending. 7. Further, it is made clear that the during the pendency of the aforesaid disciplinary proceeding, if any opportunity for promotion comes in the way of the petitioner then his case shall be considered by adopting the sealed cover method. 8. With the aforesaid observations/ directions the writ petition stands disposed of. Issue urgent certified copy of this order as per Rules. ( A.K. Mohapatra) Judge RKS Designation: AR-CUM-Senior Secretary