IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C ) No.37271 of 2025 Jagannath Prasad Dalai …. Petitioner Mr. S.C.D. Dash, Adv. -versus- State of Odisha & Others …. Opposite Party Mr. C.K. Pradhan, AGA COROM: THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY Order No ORDER 29.01.2026 01. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Mode. 2. Heard learned counsel appearing for the parties. 3. The present Writ Petition has been filed inter alia challenging the inquiry report submitted by the Inquiry Officer under Annexure-8 in a proceeding initiated against the Petitioner vide Memorandum dt.10.07.2025 under Annexure-2. 4. It is the main contention of the learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner that while submitting the inquiry report, the Inquiry Officer could not have imposed the punishment and the same is not permissible in the eye of law. It is fairly contended that taking into account the materials brought into record by the Inquiry Officer, the Inquiry Officer only can propose the punishment, instead of imposing the same. It is accordingly contended that since the Inquiry Officer while submitting the report has imposed the penalty, the same the is not sustainable in the eye of law. 5. Learned Addl. Govt. Advocate on the other hand contended that the Inquiry Officer has in fact proposed the punishment and he has used the wrong word “ imposed” in the said report. 6. Having heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and considering the submission made, this Court is of the view that the Inquiry Officer while submitting the report, is competent to propose the punishment to be imposed on a delinquent employee and he cannot impose any penalty. 7. Therefore, this Court while not interfering with the report under Annexure-8, only observe that the word imposed be treated as proposed punishment. 8. The Writ Petition accordingly stands disposed of with the aforesaid observation. (Biraja Prasanna Satapathy) Judge sangita