IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C) No.37109 of 2025 Satyanarayan Agrawal …. Petitioner Mr. P.K. Mishra, Advocate -versus- State of Odisha & Ors. …. Opposite Parties Mr. P.P. Behera, ASC Mr. S. Das, Adv. for Vigilance CORAM: JUSTICE BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY Order No. ORDER 28.01.2026 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.13.01.2026, Mr. S. Das, learned Standing Counsel Vigilance contended that investigation in Koraput Vigilance P.S. Case No.12 dtd.01.05.2019 so available under Annexure-1 is at the final stage of investigation and after such completion of the investigation if sufficient materials will be found against the Petitioner, final form will be submitted. 4. The present Writ Petition has been filed inter alia with the following prayer:- “In view of the facts and circumstances stated above, it is prayed, therefore, that this Hon'ble Court may graciously be pleased to: p. 2 p. 2 (1) Quash the disciplinary proceeding initiated vide Memorandum No. 2030/WR (C) dated 08.11.2019 under Annexure-3; (ii) And may be pleased to direct the O.P. to grant all service benefits including promotions at par with his juniors as have been held up due to pending proceeding, in favour of the petitioner within a stipulated period of time And. (iii) Pass such other order (s), direction (s) as deem fit and proper to the facts and circumstances of the case to give complete relief to the petitioner; And for this act of kindness, the petitioner as in duty bound shall ever pray.” 5. It is contended that even though the proceeding on self-same charges was initiated against the Petitioner vide Memorandum dtd.08.11.2019 under Annexure-3, but the same is yet to be finalized and accordingly causing prejudice to the Petitioner. 6. It is contended that Petitioner is going to retire from his services on attaining the age of superannuation 30.06.2026 and unless the proceeding will be finalized prior to his retirement, Petitioner will not be able to get the retiral benefits. 7. Learned Addl. Standing Counsel for the State on the other hand contended that in the proceeding so initiated vide Memorandum dtd.08.11.2019 under Annexure-3, Petitioner since never filed his written statement of defence and instead he obtained an interim order by filing W.P.(C) No.4010 of 2020, the proceeding could not be concluded. p. 3 p. 3 7.1. It is accordingly contended that since the proceeding has been delayed at the instance of the Petitioner, no direction is required to be issued to conclude the same. 8. To the submission made by the learned Addl. Standing Counsel, learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner contended that Petitioner in the meantime has already got all the relevant documents and he can file his written statement of defence without any further delay. However, it is contended that after filing of the written statement of defence, the disciplinary authority-Opposite Party No.1 be directed to conclude the proceeding in accordance with law prior to his retirement. 9. Having heard learned counsel appearing for the Parties, considering the submissions made and taking into account the fact that in the vigilance proceeding, final form has not yet been filed, this Court while disposing the writ petition permits the Petitioner to file his written statement of defence before Opposite Party No.1 on or before 13.02.2026. On such filing of the written statement of defence, Opposite Party No.1 shall take all possible step with appointment of the enquiry officer and conclude the proceeding prior to retirement of the Petitioner which falls due on 30.06.2026. Petitioner however is directed to co-operate for such disposal of the proceeding as every stage and will not ask for any adjournment on any ground. This order is passed taking p. 4 p. 4 into account the fact that if the proceeding is not disposed of prior to retirement of the Petitioner, then same has to be converted to a proceeding under Rule-7 of OCS (Pension) Rules, 1992. Therefore, Opposite Party No.1 is advised to dispose of the proceeding by 30.06.2026 if there is no other legal impediment. 9.1. This Court once again appreciates the sincerity of the learned Standing Counsel Vigilance in providing up- to-date instruction as and when asked for by this Court at a very short notice. 10. Accordingly, the Writ Petition stands disposed of. (Biraja Prasanna Satapathy) Judge Subrat