IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C ) No.21225 of 2026 Gayatri Jena …. Petitioner Mr. B. Routray, Sr. Adv. along with Mr. S. Sekhar, Adv. -versus- General Manager and Disciplinary Authority, State Bank of India, West Bengal …. Opp. Party Mr. B.S.Tripathy, Sr. Adv. along with Mr.D.K. Mohapatra, Adv. COROM: THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY Order No ORDER 22.07.2026 2. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Mode. 2. Heard Mr. B. Routray, learned Sr. Counsel appearing for the Petitioner along with Mr. S. Sekhar, learned counsel and Mr. B.S. Tripathy, learned Sr. Counsel appearing along with Mr. D.K. Mohapatra, learned counsel appearing for the Opp. Party-Bank. 3. The present Writ Petition has been filed inter alia with the following prayer: It is therefore, most humbly prayed that this Hon’ble Court be graciously pleased to: (i) Admit the writ application (ii) Call for the record. p. 2 p. 2 (iii) Issue Rule Nisi calling upon the Opp. Party to show cause as to why the order of dismissal dated 01.07.2026 under Annexure-11 shall not be quashed. iv) If the Opp. Party fails to show-cause or show insufficient cause make the rule absolute and issue a writ in the nature of certiorari or any order/orders by quashing the order of direction/directions. dismissal dated, 01.07.2026 under Annexure-11 shall not be quashed. v) Issue a writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ/ writs, order/orders, direction/directions directing the Opp. Party to allow a reasonable time to the petitioner to reinstate the petitioner in her service and extend all the consequential financial and service benefits as due and admissible within a reasonable time frame to be stipulated by this Hon'ble Court. vi) And/or pass any other order/orders, direction/directions as this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper for the ends of justice. And for the said act of kindness, the petitioners as in duty bound shall ever pray.” 4. It is contended that this Court while dealing with the issue involving the Petitioner in W.P.(C) No.9668 of 2025 passed the final order on 13.05.2026 which reads as follows: 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Mode. 2. Heard learned counsel appearing for the parties. 3. The present Writ Petition has been filed inter alia challenging the show-cause notice issued by the Opp. Party-Bank under Annexure-8. 4. However, in course of hearing, Mr. S.D. Routray, learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner fairly contended that he may be permitted to file his reply to the show-cause and the matter be decided in accordance with law. p. 3 p. 3 5. Learned Counsel appearing for the Opp. Party-Bank has no serious objection to the course of action proposed by Mr. S.D. Routray, learned counsel for the Petitioner. 6 Having heard learned Counsel for the parities and considering the submission made. this Court while disposing the Writ Petition permits the Petitioner to file his reply to the impugned show-cause dt.28.03.2025 on or before 30.06 2026. 7. On such filing of the reply within the aforesaid time period, the Opp. Party-Bank shall proceed with the issue and take a final decision in accordance with law. 8. The Writ Petition accordingly stands disposed of.” 4.1. Learned Sr. Counsel appearing for the Petitioner contended that since Petitioner by the time the Writ Petition was disposed of was in custody and was only released on 27.06.2026, she made an application by filing I.A. NO.11958 of 2026 on 29.06.2026 seeking extension of time to file her reply in the disposed of W.P.(C) No. 9668 of 2025. However, on the ground that Petitioner has failed to submit her reply to the show cause, in terms of order dt.13.05.2026 by 30.06.2026, the impugned order of dismissal was passed on 1.07.2026 under Annexure-11. 4.2 Learned Sr. Counsel appearing for the Petitioner contended that since by the time Writ Petition in W.P.(C) No. 9668 of 2025 was disposed of vide order dt.13.05.2026, Petitioner was in custody and remained as such till 27.06.2026, she made the application in I.A. N.11958 of 2026 seeking extension of time to file the reply, the last date being 30.06.2026. But without waiting for consideration of p. 4 p. 4 the I.A, impugned order of dismissal was passed on 01.07.2026. It is accordingly contended that the impugned order needs interference of this Court and Petitioner be given an opportunity to file her reply to the show-cause which was the subject matter in W.P.(C) No.9668 ofn2025. 5. Mr. B.S. Tripathy, learned Sr. Counsel appearing for the Opp. Party-Bank on the other hand contended that since after disposal of the earlier Writ Petition vide order dt.13.05.2026 and though it is not disputed that Petitioner was in custody by them, but after her release from custody on 27.06.2026, she should have filed her reply by 30.06.2026. As Petitioner never filed her reply by 30.06.2026, no illegality or irregularity can be found with the impugned order of dismissal passed on 01.07.2026. It is also contended that the I.A so filed by the Petitioner in I.A. No.11958 of 2026 seeking extension of time to file her reply was served on the learned counsel appearing for the Opp. Party-Bank on 2nd July, 2026. 5.1 It is contended that since there was no instruction available with the engaged counsel appearing for the bank regarding filing of I.A No.11958 of 2026 seeking extension of time till 2nd July, 2026, no illegality or irregularity can also be found with the impugned order of dismissal, passed on 01.07.2026. 5.2. Making all these submissions, learned Sr. Counsel appearing for the Opp. Party-Bank contended that no interference is called for with regard to the order of dismissal passed on 01.07.2026. p. 5 p. 5 6. Having heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and considering the submission made, this Court finds that challenging the 2nd show-cause issued against the Petitioner, Petitioner was before this Court in W.P.(C) No.9668 of 2025. This Court vide order dt.13.05.2026 while disposing the Writ Petition, permitted the Petitioner to file her reply to the show cause notice dtd.28.03.2025, on or before 30.06.2026. 6.1. It is not disputed that Petitioner by the time the Writ Petition was disposed of, was in custody and she was only released on bail on 27.06.2026. It is also found that after her release from custody on 27.06.2026, I.A. NO.11958 of 2026 was filed on 29.06.2026 seeking extension of time to file the reply to the show-cause. But the impugned order of dismissal was passed on 01.07.2026 under Annexure-1, on the ground that no reply was filed by 30.06.2026. 6.2. Since it is not disputed that Petitioner was in custody till 27.06.2026 and an application was filed before this Court on 29.06.2026 seeking extension of time to file her reply in the disposed of W.P.(C) No. 9668 of 2025, it is the view of this Court that the authorities should have waited for some more time, than passing the order of dismissal on the very next day of the time stipulated by this Court for filing of the reply to the show-cause. It is also the view of this Court that Opp. Party-Bank proceeded in a haste in passing the order of dismissal, on the face of the order passed by this Court on 13.05.2026. 6.3. In view of the aforesaid analysis, this Court is of the view that Petitioner is entitled to file her reply to the show- p. 6 p. 6 cause notice dt.28.03.2025. Therefore, this Court while quashing the impugned order of dismissal so passed on 01.07.2026 under Annexure-11, permits the Petitioner to file her reply to the show-cause by 01.08.2026. On submission of the reply, appropriate decision can be taken on the issue involved in the show-cause dt.16.03.2025 by the competent authority, in which this Court expresses no opinion. 7. The Writ Petition accordingly stands disposed of. (Biraja Prasanna Satapathy) Judge sangita