IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C) No.31104 of 2025 Harekrushna Das …. Petitioner Proxy counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner -versus- State of Odisha & Others …. Opposite Parties Mr. S. Das, ASC CORAM: JUSTICE BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY Order No. ORDER 13.02.2026 02. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual/Physical) Mode. 2. Heard learned counsel appearing for the Parties. 3. Pursuant to the order dtd.12.11.2025, learned Addl. Standing Counsel produced the instruction provided by the Sub-Collector, Ttitilagarh vide his letter dtd.21.11.2025 with service of copy on the learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner in Court. 4. The present Writ Petition has been filed inter alia with the following prayer:- “The petitioner, therefore, prays that Your Lordship's may graciously be pleased to admit the writ application, issue notice to the opp. parties and after hearing the parties direct the opp. parties to dispose of Departmental Proceeding Case No.2176/GP dated 06.12.2013 within a fixed period of time in the interest of justice. And for this act of kindness the petitioner shall, as in duty bound ever pray.” p. 2 p. 2 5. It is contended that even though the proceeding is pending since 2013 and Petitioner was noticed in the year 2020 to participate in the enquiry, but no further progress is being made to the proceeding. 5.1. It is accordingly contended that appropriate direction be issued to conclude the proceeding within a stipulated time period, as because of pendency of the proceeding, Petitioner is not getting his promotional benefits as well as financial benefits like RACP & MACP. 6. On instruction, Mr. S. Das, learned ASC contended that even though Petitioner was noticed to participate in the enquiry since 31.08.2020 and Petitioner all through is appearing on the date fixed, but because of the absence of the Marshaling Officer who happens to be the DSP, Vigilance, Bolangir, the enquiry is yet to proceed. 6.1. It is also contended that Collector-cum-District Magistrate, Bolangir though has been requested to change the Marshaling Officer, but no action has yet been taken. 6.2. It is accordingly contended that Sub-Collector, Titilagarh-Opposite Party No.4 who is the enquiry officer in the proceeding is unable to proceed due to non-presence of the Marshalling Officer. 7. Having heard learned counsel appearing for the Parties and considering the submissions made, this Court finds that the proceeding was initiated way back on 06.12.2013 and in the meantime more than 12 years have p. 3 p. 3 passed. On the face of the appointment of the Enquiry Officer and Marshaling Officer with issuance of the notice in the year 2020, no enquiry has yet been conducted. 7.1. In that view of the matter, this Court while disposing the Writ Petition directs Opposite Party No.2, who happens to be the disciplinary authority to dispose of the proceeding in accordance with law as expeditiously as possible preferably by the end of August, 2026. However, it is observed that if the proceeding is not disposed of within the aforesaid time period, the proceeding will be treated as dropped. 8. Accordingly, the Writ Petition stands disposed of. (Biraja Prasanna Satapathy) Judge Subrat