Page 1 of 3. IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK WP(C) No. 6638 of 2026 Manas Kumar Pradhan ..... Petitioner Mr. B. Seth, Advocate -versus- State of Odisha & Ors. ..... Opposite Parties Mr. A. Tripathy, AGA CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY ORDER 16.03.2026 Order No. 02 1. This matter is taken up through hybrid mode. 2. Pursuant to order dtd.07.03.2026, learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner produced the order sheet in C.T. Case No. 125/2024 in the file of learned Addl. Sessions Judge, Baliguda in Court. The same be kept in record. 3. Heard Mr. B. Seth, learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner and Mr. S.P. Das, learned Addl. Standing Counsel appearing for the Opp. Parties. 4. The present writ petition has been filed inter alia with the following prayer:- “It is therefore prayed that this Hon'ble Court may graciously be pleased to admit this writ petition and issue Notice to the Opp.parties call for the records and after hearing both the parties the charge memo of evidence of order sheet dated 09.08.2024 vide Anenxure-3 may be quashed /set aside by this Hon'ble Court in the interest of justice. Page 2 of 3. And any other order/orders direction/directions may deem fit and proper pass in favour of the petitioner. And for this act of kindness the petitioner as in duty bound shall ever pray.” 5. It is contended that since the departmental proceeding has been initiated against the Petitioner vide charge memo dtd.09.08.2024 under Annexure-3, because of the implication of the Petitioner in C.T. Case No. 125/2024 for the offence under Sec. 20(b)(ii)(C)/25 of NDPS Act, Petitioner will be seriously prejudiced, if the departmental proceeding is finalized prior to finalization of the criminal proceeding in C.T. Case No. 125/2024. It is accordingly contended that till disposal of the criminal proceeding in C.T. No. 125/2024, Opp. Party No. 3 be restrained from passing the final order in the departmental proceeding so initiated vide charge memo dtd.09.08.2024. 6. Learned Addl. Govt. Advocate on the other hand contended that Petitioner is an employee working under the Police Department and has been involved in C.T. Case No. 125/2024, for the offence under Sec. 20(b)(ii)(C)/25 of NDPS Act. It is also contended that cognizance has already been taken against the Petitioner and two (2) other accused persons vide order dtd.11.02.2025. But thereafter, since Petitioner is not appearing before the trial court, learned trial court is unable to proceed with the trial. 6.1. It is also contended that since Petitioner is involved in a NDPS matter being in the Police Department, he is not similarly situated as like other Govt. employees, where this Court is passing orders Page 3 of 3. restraining the departmental authority from finalizing the proceeding till finalization of the criminal proceeding. 7. Having heard learned counsel appearing for the Parties, considering the submission made and the fact that Petitioner while working in the Police Department, has been involved in a case registered under Sec. 20(b)(ii)(C)/25 of NDPS Act and cognizance has already been taken vide order dtd.11.02.2025, this Court is not inclined to allow the prayer as made in the writ petition and stay the departmental proceeding till disposal of the criminal proceeding. 7.1. However, it is observed that final order, if any passed in the departmental proceeding shall be subject to final outcome of C.T. Case No. 125/2025. If Petitioner is acquitted in the said proceeding ultimately, he can challenge the final order, if any passed in the departmental proceeding. 8. With the aforesaid liberty, the writ petition stands disposed of. (BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY) Judge Sneha