Page 1 of 3. IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK WP(C) No. 9134 of 2026 Tapan Kumar Dwivedy ..... Petitioner Mr. S.K. Singh, Advocate -versus- Union of India & Ors. ..... Opposite Parties Mr. P.K. Parhi, DSGI along with Mr. G.K. Nayak, CGC CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY ORDER 06.04.2026 Order No. 01 1. This matter is taken up through hybrid mode. 2. Heard Mr. S.K. Singh, learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner and Mr. P.K. Parhi, learned DSGI along with Mr. G.K. Nayak, learned CGC appearing for the Opp. Parties. 3. The present writ petition has been filed inter alia with the following prayer:- “It is therefore humbly prayed that, this Hon'ble Court may be graciously be pleased to issue a Rule Nissi calling upon the opposite parties to show cause as to why the order of transfer dtd.31.12.2025 under Annexture-4 and order of rejection dtd.10.02.2026 under annexure-6 shall not be quashed and further why the petitioner shall not be allowed to continue at GC, C.R.P.F., Bhubaneswar, on medical ground and if the opposite parties fail to show cause or show insufficient cause, the rule may be made absolute by quashing Annexure-4 and 6. And may be pleased to Pass any other appropriate order/orders as deemed fit just and proper for the interest of Justice. Page 2 of 3. And for this act of kindness the petitioner as in duty bound shall ever pray.” 4. It is contended that Petitioner while continuing in service when he was put under transfer vide order dtd.31.12.2025 under Annexure-4, he made a detailed representation under Annexure-5 with a prayer to cancel the same. But without assigning any reason whatsoever, Petitioner’s claim has been rejected vide the impugned order under Annexure-6 dtd.10.02.2026. 4.1. Learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner contended that since while rejecting the Petitioner’s claim vide the impugned order, no reason has been assigned and it is a non-speaking one, the same is not sustainable in the eye of law. It is accordingly contended that Petitioner’s claim is required to be considered afresh with passing of a reasoned and speaking order. 5. Learned DSGI though supported the impugned order, but failed to satisfy this Court that any reason has been assigned while rejecting the claim of the Petitioner so made under Annexure-5. 6. Having heard learned counsel appearing for the Parties, considering the submission made and since it is found that no reason has been assigned while rejecting the representation filed by the Petitioner under Annexure-5 against the impugned order of transfer dtd.31.12.2025, this Court on that ground only, is inclined to quash the same. While quashing the impugned order dtd.10.02.2026, this Court remits the matter to Opp. Party No. 4 to take a fresh decision on the Petitioner’s claim with passing of a reasoned and speaking order. Page 3 of 3. 6.1. Since it is fairly contended that all such order of transfer has been kept in abeyance till 15th May, it is expected that a fresh order will be passed before the said date. 7. The writ petition accordingly stands disposed of. (BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY) Judge Sneha