Page 1 of 3. IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK WP(C) No. 12792 of 2026 Kashinath Nayak ..... Petitioner Mr. S.P. Swain, Advocate -versus- State of Odisha & Ors. ..... Opposite Parties Mr. S. Das, ASC CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY ORDER 01.05.2026 Order No. 01 1. This matter is taken up through hybrid mode. 2. Heard Mr. S.P. Swain, learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner and Mr. S. Das, learned Addl. Standing Counsel appearing for the Opp. Parties. 3. The present writ petition has been filed inter alia with the following prayer:- “It is therefore prayed that this Hon'ble Court would be graciously pleased to: A) Allow this Writ Petition B) Issue Rule NISI, asking the Opp. Parties to show cause as to why they shall not be directed to disposed of the appeal petition vide Annexure-8 by implementing the order passed in O.A. No.3694/2013 and if the Opp. Parties do not show cause or show insufficient cause, then issue a writ of mandamus in nature, thereby directing the concerned Opp. Parties to dispose of the appeal petition vide Annexure-8 within a stipulated period. C) And/or pass an order(s), direction(s), as this Hon'ble Court deem fit and proper. Page 2 of 3. And for this act of kindness, the petitioner as in duty bound shall ever pray.” 4. It is contended that even though against the order of punishment passed under Annexure-5, Petitioner moved the appellate authority on 27.03.2008, but no action when was taken, Petitioner moved Opp. Party No. 1 by filing an application on 15.07.2012 under Annexure- 8 and with a prayer to set aside the order of dismissal. 4.1. It is contended that as no action was taken on such application filed by the Petitioner under Annexure-8, Petitioner moved the Tribunal by filing O.A. No. 3694 of 2013. The Tribunal vide order dtd.03.01.2014 under Annexure-9 though directed Opp. Party No. 1 to dispose of the petition filed on 15.07.2012 under Annexure-8, but no action has been taken in complying the order. It is accordingly contended that Opp. Party No. 1 be directed to comply the order passed by the Tribunal under Annexure-9. 5. Learned Addl. Standing Counsel on the other hand contended that since against the order of dismissal, Opp. Party No. 2 is the appellate authority, no application should have been filed before Opp. Party No. 1 under Annexure-8 and approaching the Tribunal with a prayer to direct Opp. Party No. 1 to consider the same. 5.1. It is also contended that the Tribunal without proper appreciation of the provisions contained under OCS (CCA) Rules, 1962, issued the direction to Opp. Party No. 1 who admittedly is not the appellate authority. It is accordingly contended that the order passed by the Tribunal cannot be implemented as Opp. Party No. 1 is not the appellate authority. 6. At this point of time, learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner contended that Petitioner be permitted to move Opp. Party No. 2 by Page 3 of 3. filing an appeal against the order of dismissal and Opp. Party No. 2 be directed to take a decision on the same. 7. Having heard learned counsel appearing for the Parties, considering the submission made and since admittedly Petitioner has not yet moved the appellate authority against the order of dismissal passed under Annexure-5 and he has chosen a wrong authority and has obtained a wrong order from the Tribunal, this Court while disposing the writ petition, permits the Petitioner to move Opp. Party No. 2 by filing an appeal against the order of dismissal passed on 27.01.2008 under Annexure-5. 7.1. It is observed that, if any such application is moved before Opp. Party No. 2 within a period of three (3) weeks, the said Opp. Party shall do well to take a lawful decision on the same within a further period of three (3) months from the date of receipt of such application with due communication to the Petitioner. 8.The writ petition accordingly stands disposed of. (BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY) Judge Sneha