Page 1 of 6. IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK WP(C) No. 37430 of 2025 Jagannath Kandi ..... Petitioner Mr. S. Patra (1), Advocate -versus- State of Odisha & Ors. ..... Opposite Parties Mr. S. Das, ASC CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY ORDER 13.02.2026 Order No. 08 1. This matter is taken up through hybrid mode. 2. Pursuant to order dtd.13.01.2025, learned Addl. Standing Counsel produced the instruction so provided by the Sub-Collector, Cuttack vide letter dtd.07.02.2026 in Court. The same be kept in record. 3. Heard Mr. S. Patra (1), learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner and Mr. S. Das, learned Addl. Standing Counsel appearing for the Opp. Parties. 4. The present writ petition has been filed inter alia with the following prayer:- “Under the facts and circumstances stated above, the petitioner therefore prays that, this Hon'ble Court may graciously be pleased to issue appropriate Writ/Writ(s) in the nature of writs of Certiorari quashing the Order of Suspension dtd.07.05.1997, Charge Memo dtd.08.12.1998, inquiry report dtd.28.12.2013 and Order of penalty Page 2 of 6. dtd.04.03.2024 under Annexure-2,3,7 & 8 respectively after declaring those as illegal. And further be pleased to issue appropriate Writ/Writ(s) in the nature of writs of Mandamus directing the Opposite Parties to regularize the period of suspension and extend all consequential service and financial benefits including pension & Pensionary benefits with interest within a stipulated period of time. And pass any other order/orders as would be deemed fit and proper. And for this act of kindness, the petitioner shall ever pray.” 5. Learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner contended that in the proceeding initiated against the Petitioner vide memorandum dtd.08.12.1998 under Annexure-3, Petitioner not only filed his written statement of defence but also participated in the enquiry. After completion of the enquiry on 28.12.2013 under Annexure-7, no further action was taken in the matter. 5.1. It is also contended that the proceeding in question under Annexure-3 was initiated against the Petitioner, because of his implication in a criminal proceeding arising out of Chauliaganj P.S. Case No. 87 of 1997. It is also contended that in the said Chauliaganj P.S. Case No. 87 of 1997, corresponding to G.R. Case No. 812 of 1997, Petitioner was acquitted vide judgment dtd.29.02.2024 by the learned CJM-cum-Asst. Sessions Judge, Cuttack under Annexure-10. Page 3 of 6. 5.2. It is contended that the disciplinary authority when came to know that Petitioner has been acquitted in the criminal proceeding, basing on the enquiry report submitted under Annexure-7, disposed of the proceeding by imposing the punishment vide the impugned order dtd.04.03.2024 under Annexure-8. It is contended that since after submission of the enquiry report, Petitioner was never issued with the 1st & 2nd show-cause in terms of the provisions contained under Rule 15 (10) of the OCS (CCA) Rules, 1962 (in short Rules), no such order of punishment could have been imposed vide the impugned order dtd.04.03.2024 under Annexure-8. 5.3. It is also contended that while imposing such a punishment, relevancy and effect of the order of acquittal passed in the criminal proceeding was not taken into consideration. It is accordingly contended that the impugned order is liable to be set aside by this Court. 6. Basing on the instruction learned Addl. Standing Counsel contended that in the proceeding initiated against the Petitioner under Annexure-3, the enquiry officer submitted the enquiry report on 28.12.2013 by holding the Petitioner guilty of the charges with the following finding:- “1. Rs.61,370/- may be recovered from each viz C.D.P.O. Minakhi Singh and the D.O. Jagannath Kandi. 2. One annual increment of the D.O. Jagannath Kandi may be stopped without cumulative effect. 3. Period of suspension may be treated as such. Page 4 of 6. 4. Period from 08.04.1997 till date of suspension may be regularised as leave due." 6.1. It is however contended that because of the pendency of the criminal proceeding, the matter was kept pending. But since the enquiry officer held the Petitioner guilty of the charges, disciplinary authority-Opp. Party No. 2 disposed of the proceeding vide order dtd.04.03.2024 under Annexure-8 by imposing the following punishment:- “1. Rs. 61,370 may be recovered from the D.O Jaganath Kandi, Ex-Senior Clerk. 2. One annual increment of the D.O Jaganath Kandi may be stopped without cumulative effect. 3. Period of suspension may be treated as such. 4. Period from 08.04.1997 to 26.04.1997 (Date of Suspension) may be regularised as leave due.” 6.2. It is accordingly contended that since the enquiry officer held the Petitioner guilty of the charges, no illegality or irregularity can be found with the impugned order. 7. Having heard learned counsel appearing for the Parties and considering the submission made, this Court finds that Petitioner while in service as a Sr. Clerk-cum-Junior Assistant, the proceeding in question was initiated by Opp. Party No. 2 vide Memorandum dtd.08.12.1998 under Annexure-3. As found, in the said proceeding the enquiry officer submitted the report on 28.12.2013 under Annexure-7. This Court from the instruction nowhere finds any action being taken by the disciplinary authority after submission of the enquiry report on 28.12.2013. Page 5 of 6. 7.1. It is also found that Petitioner on similar charges was acquitted in the criminal proceeding vide judgment dtd.29.02.2024 under Annexure-10. After such acquittal of the Petitioner vide the aforesaid Judgment, Opp. Party No. 2 disposed of the proceeding vide the impugned order dtd.04.03.2024 under Annxure-8, by imposing the punishment so proposed by the enquiry officer. 7.2. Since no document is available in the record as well as in the instruction, showing compliance of the provisions contained under Rule 15(10) of the Rules, this Court is of the view that without complying the said statutory provision, no order of punishment could have been imposed. 7.3. It is also found that while imposing such punishment, relevancy and effect of the order of acquittal passed against the Petitioner under Annexure-10 has not been taken into consideration. Since statutory provision contained under Rule 15 has not been followed and after submission of the enquiry report, the impugned order of punishment has been passed, this Court is inclined to quash order dtd.04.03.2024 so passed by Opp. Party No. 2 under Annexure-8 and quash the same accordingly. This Court is not inclined to remit the matter for disposal of the proceeding by following the statutory provision, as the proceeding is of the year 1998, and Petitioner has already retired from service on attaining the age of superannuation on 31.05.2012. 7.4. Not only that, it is the view of this Court that since on self-same issue Petitioner has been acquitted in the criminal proceeding, no fruitful purpose will be solved in remitting the matter. Therefore, while quashing the order of punishment, this Court dispose of the writ petition with a direction on the Opp. Party No. 2 to take appropriate Page 6 of 6. step for regularization of the period of suspension and release all retiral benefits as due and admissible in favour of the Petitioner. This Court directs Opp. Party No. 2 to complete the entire exercise within a period of four (4) months from the date of receipt of this order. 8. The writ petition accordingly stands disposed of. (BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY) Judge Sneha