Page 1 of 3. IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK WP(C) No. 4099 of 2026 Birendra Kumar ..... Petitioner Mr. A. Tripathy, Advocate -versus- Union of India & Ors. ..... Opposite Parties Mr. P.K. Parhi, DSGI along with Mr. D. Gochhayat, CGC CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY ORDER 10.02.2026 Order No. 01 1. This matter is taken up through hybrid mode. 2. Heard Mr. A. Tripathy, learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner and Mr. P.K. Parhi, learned DSGI along with Mr. D. Gochhayat, learned CGC appearing for the Opp. Parties. 3. The present writ petition has been filed inter alia with the following prayer:- “Under the facts and circumstances stated above, the petitioner therefore prays that, this Hon'ble Court may graciously be pleased to issue appropriate Writ/Writ(s) in the nature of writs of Mandamus by directing the Opposite parities not to proceed with the departmental proceeding initiated against the petitioner vide letter dated. 12.11.2024 till conclusion of the criminal case i.e. R.C. Case No. 2172022A0008 pending before the learned Special Judge under P.C. Act Rouse Avenue District Court, New Delhi. Page 2 of 3. And pass any other order/orders as would be deemed fit and proper. And for this act of kindness, the petitioner shall ever pray.” 4. It is contended that since the charges in the departmental proceeding is similar to the charges pending before the learned Rouse Avenue District Court, New Delhi in R.C. Case No. 21720022A0008, Petitioner will be seriously prejudiced, if the departmental proceeding will be finalised prior to disposal of the proceeding pending before the learned Special Judge, CBI, Rouse Avenue Court, New Delhi. 5. Mr. P.K. Parhi, learned DSGI though does not dispute the contention raised by the learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner with regard to similarity of the charges, but contended that since Petitioner is not participating in the disciplinary proceeding nor filing his written statement, the disciplinary authority is not in a position to proceed. It is accordingly contended that Petitioner be directed to participate in the departmental proceeding. 6. Having heard learned counsel appearing for the Parties and considering the submission made, this Court while disposing the writ petition, directs the Petitioner to file his written statement of defence and participate in the disciplinary proceeding. However, it is directed that, final order in the disciplinary proceeding will not be passed till disposal of the criminal proceeding by the concerned court. 6.1. Since the concerned Special Judge, CBI, Rouse Avenue Court, New Delhi is not coming within the jurisdiction of this Court, this Court grants liberty to the Opp. Parties to move appropriate Page 3 of 3. application, for early disposal of the proceeding before the said criminal court. 7. With the aforesaid observation and direction, the writ petition stands disposed of. (BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY) Judge Sneha