Page 1 of 3. IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK WP(C) No.20455 of 2025 Manas Ranjan Dash ..... Petitioner Represented By Adv. - Prakash Kumar Mishra -versus- State Of Odisha and others ..... Opposite Parties Mr. L.K. Moharana, Adv. for TPCODL Mr. C.M. Singh, ASC CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADITYA KUMAR MOHAPATRA ORDER 24.07.2025 Order No. 01. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid mode. 2. Heard learned counsel for the Petitioner as well as Mr. Moharana, learned counsel for TPCODL and learned counsel for the State. Perused the writ application as well as the documents annexed thereto. 3. The Petitioner has filed the present writ application with the following prayer: “In the light of above noted fact and circumstances it is therefore prayed that this Hon'ble Court would be graciously be pleased to admit the writ application, issue Rule Nissi calling upon the Opposite Parties to file show Page 2 of 3. cause as to why the Letter No. TPCODL/AED/ESST./ 25-26/1299 dated 19.07.2025 along with Charge Sheet No. 01/2025-26 under Annexure-2 shall not be quashed, And if the opposite parties fails to show cause or show insufficient cause then this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to make the said Rule absolute and the writ petition may be allowed with cost quashing the Letter No. TPCODL/AED/ESST./25-26/1299 dated 19.07.2025 along with Charge Sheet No. 01/2025-26 under Annexure - 2 in the interest of justice, And may pass such other order/orders, direction/ directions as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit, proper, and equitable in the facts and circumstances of the case;” 4. Learned counsel for the Petitioner at the outset contended that the Petitioner being aggrieved by the conduct of the Opposite Party No.5 in granting 48 hours’ of time to file the written statement of defence in a pending departmental proceeding, the Petitioner has approached this Court by filing the present writ petition. Learned counsel for the Petitioner further contended that the disciplinary authority has granted 48 hours’ of time to file written statement of defence which is unreasonable and illegal. He further contended that the Petitioner needs some more time to collect the documents to file an effective written statement of defence. 5. Mr. Moharana, learned counsel for TPCODL on the other hand contended that taking into consideration the charge against the Page 3 of 3. Petitioner the Opposite Party No.5 has granted reasonable time to the Petitioner. He further contended that if the Petitioner wanted some time, he could have approached the Opposite Party No.5 for extension of such time instead the Petitioner has approached this Court by filing the present writ petition. On such ground, Mr. Moharana, learned counsel for TPCODL questioned the maintenance of the present writ petition. 6. Having regard to the submissions made by the learned counsels appearing for the respective parties, on a careful examination of the background facts, further taking note of the dispute involved in the present writ petition, this Court is of the view that the same can be resolved by disposing of the present writ petition. Accordingly, the present petitioner is being disposed of by directing the Opposite Party No. to grant further three weeks’ time to the Petitioner to file his written statement of defence. Let the Petitioner approach the Opposite Party No.5 along with a copy of today’s order within a week from today. 7. With the aforesaid observations/directions, the writ application stands disposed of. Issue urgent certified copy of this order as per Rules. ( Aditya Kumar Mohapatra ) Judge S.K. Rout