IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C) No.29173 of 2025 Niranjan Sahu …. Petitioner Mr. P.K. Mishra, Advocate -versus- State of Odisha & Ors. …. Opp. Parties Mr. S. Das, ASC CORAM: JUSTICE BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY Order No. ORDER 01.12.2025 03. 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.17.10.2025, learned Addl. Standing Counsel for the State produced the instruction so provided by the Department. The same be kept in record. 4. The present Writ Petition has been filed inter alia with the following prayer:- “It is prayed, therefore that this Hon'ble Court may graciously be pleased to; 1) Admit and allow the writ petition. ii) Quash the impugned memorandum vide No. 9949/W, dated 20.08.2019 shown at Annexure-2 and; iii) Further be pleased to direct the Opp. Party to grant all service and financial benefits at par with his juniors and release all retirement dues to the petitioner within a stipulated period of time. iv) 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 in the proceeding initiated vide Memorandum dtd.20.08.2019, after completion of the enquiry, Petitioner was issued with the 1st show cause vide notice dtd.27.12.2021 under Annexure-5. 5.1. It is contended that even though Petitioner submitted his reply on 10.01.2022, but the proceeding thereafter has been kept on hold and because of that Petitioner is not getting his retiral benefits even though he has retired since 30.04.2024. 5.2. It is accordingly contended that even though prayer has been made for quashing of the proceeding, but if this Court will direct the disciplinary authority, who happens to Opposite Party No.1, to dispose of the proceeding so initiated vide Memorandum dtd.20.08.2019 under Annexure-2 within a stipulated time, Petitioner will have no grievance. 6. Learned Addl. Standing Counsel for the State on instruction contended that such a proceeding was initiated against the Petitioner because of his implication in Cuttack Vigilance Cell P.S. Case No.22 dtd.23.12.2017 under Section-13(2) read with Section 13(1)(e) of the P.C. Act / 109 of the IPC. 6.1. It is contended that since in the aforesaid proceeding after completion of the investigation, Government has been requested to accord sanction to prosecute the Petitioner vide letter dtd.06.09.2025, no further action has been taken to conclude the departmental proceeding, so initiated vide Memorandum dtd.20.08.2019 after submission of the reply to the 1st show cause. 7. To the submission made by learned Addl. Standing Counsel for the State, learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner made further submission and bring to the notice of this Court the order available under Annexure-12. Relying on Annexure-12, it is contended that, as on 04.07.2025 final form has not yet been submitted in the vigilance proceeding. Petitioner since has retired on 30.04.2024 and no charge sheet has been filed as on 04.07.2025, it is to be held that no vigilance proceeding is pending against the Petitioner. 7.1. It is accordingly contended that appropriate direction be issued to dispose of the disciplinary proceeding so initiated vide Memorandum dtd.20.08.2019 within a stipulated time period. 8. Having heard learned counsel appearing for the Parties and considering the submissions made, this Court finds that Petitioner while in service, the proceeding in question was initiated vide Memorandum dtd.20.08.2019 under Annexure-2. As found after completion of the enquiry, Petitioner was issued with the 1st show cause vide notice dtd.27.12.2021 under Annexure-5 and Petitioner submitted his reply on 10.01.2022 under Annexure-6. 8.1. It is not disputed that Petitioner while continuing in service retired on attaining the age of the superannuation on 30.04.2024. Since in the proceeding so initiated, Petitioner has submitted the reply to the 1st show cause and in the criminal proceeding, no charge sheet has yet been filed with cognizance being taken, this Court is of the view that the disciplinary proceeding should have been decided in accordance with law. 8.2. In view of the aforesaid analysis, this Court while disposing the Writ Petition directs, Opposite Party No.1 to dispose of the proceeding so initiated vide Memorandum 20.08.2019 under Annexure-2 in accordance with law as expeditiously as possibly preferably by the end of April, 2026. Petitioner however is directed to co-operate for such disposal of the proceeding. 8. Accordingly, the Writ Petition stands disposed of. (Biraja Prasanna Satapathy) Judge Subrat