p. 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK CONTC No. 2774 of 2025 Jyotindra Singh Deo …. Petitioner Mr. S. Gupta, Advocate -Versus- Madhusudan Dash, I.A.S, Collector-cum- Chairman, Zilla Parisad, Nuapada …. Opposite Party/Contemnor Mr. S. Panda, ASC CORAM: MR. JUSTICE R.K. PATTANAIK Order No. ORDER 01.05.2026 03. 1. Heard learned counsel for the respective parties. 2. Instant contempt petition is filed for non-compliance of the Court’s order at Annexure-1. 3. In course of hearing, referring to the compliance affidavit earlier filed and objection to the same and also the additional affidavit at flag-C, it is submitted by Mr. Panda, learned ASC that there is compliance of the order in W.P.(C) No. 13629 of 2024 dated 24th July, 2024, but on the other hand, Mr. Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there is no such compliance furthermore when the question with regard to continuation of the proceeding post-retirement was left open for determination by the Authority concerned in view of the direction contained therein. 4. Today, reply to the additional affidavit of the opposite party/contemnor dated 18th March, 2026 is filed and taken on record. p. 2 5. Mr. Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that there is no disbursement of regular pension with arrears and at present, instead recovery has been directed alleging misappropriation for an amount of Rs.1,92,870/- from his pensionary benefits. 6. Recording the submissions as above and since the direction was to the concerned Authority to accept reply to the 2nd show cause notice from the petitioner and to take a decision thereon in the disciplinary proceeding and in the meantime, as it has been disposed of on 11th September, 2025, the Court instead of keeping the matter pending at its end is inclined to direct the petitioner to challenge such decision of the authority considering the fact that there is due compliance of the order in W.P.(C) No. 13629 of 2024. 7. Accordingly, it is ordered. Consequently, the contempt petition stands disposed of granting the liberty to the petitioner to challenge the decision of the Disciplinary Authority and as a necessary corollary, the proceeding is hereby dropped. (R.K. Pattanaik) Judge Kabita