Jagamohan Ojha Vs the Odisha Forest Development Corporation Ltd., Bbsr — Orissa HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

Jagamohan Ojha Vs the Odisha Forest Development Corporation Ltd., Bbsr — Orissa HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

None of the prayed-for reliefs (quashing of Annexures-2, 3 and 4; declaration of final closure of DP No.19; mandamus not to re-open) was granted; the petitioner was left with liberty to challenge the order of punishment dtd.02.04.2025 in accordance with law.

Issue for consideration

Whether the office letters/orders vide Annexures-2, 3 and 4 should be quashed and the Opposite Parties restrained from re-opening Disciplinary Proceeding No.19 dtd.20.01.2018, which was stated to have been finally closed and disposed off upon exoneration of the petitioner from all charges. +1 more

Ratio / Principle

Since after appointment of the fresh Enquiry Officer vide Annexure-2 & 3, and in the absence of any interim order passed by this Court, the disciplinary proceeding was finalized with the final order dated 02.04.2025, the prayer made in the writ petition has become infructuous.

Key takeaways

It is open to the petitioner to challenge the order of punishment passed vide order dtd.02.04.2025 in accordance with law; with that liberty, the writ petition and the pending I.A. were disposed of.ratio¶20

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Orissa High Court (Cuttack), W.P.(C) No.3856 of 2024 (Jagamohan Ojha v. The Odisha Forest Development Corporation Ltd., BBSR & Ors.) with I.A. No.14985 of 2024, decided 03.12.2025 by Biraja Prasanna Satapathy, J.: A writ petition praying for quashing of office letters/orders under Annexures-2, 3 and 4 and for directing that Disciplinary Proceeding No.19 dtd.20.01.2018 — said to have been finally closed and disposed off on the petitioner's exoneration pursuant to Annexure-1 — not be re-opened, was disposed of as infructuous. The Court noted that after appointment of a fresh Enquiry Officer vide Annexure-2 & 3, and in the absence of any interim order from the Court, the proceeding had been finalized with a final order imposing punishment on 02.04.2025. Liberty was expressly reserved to the petitioner to challenge the punishment order dtd.02.04.2025 in accordance with law.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK WP(C) No. 3856 of 2024

Jagamohan Ojha

..... Petitioner Mr. P.K. Ghose, Advocate

-versus- The Odisha Forest ..... Opposite Parties Development Corporation Ltd., Mr. B.K. Sharma, Sr. Advocate BBSR & Ors.

CORAM:

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY ORDER

03.12.2025 Order No. 02 I.A. No. 14985 of 2024 & W.P.(C) No. 3856 of 2024

This matter is taken up through hybrid mode.

Heard learned counsel appearing for the Parties.

The present writ petition has been filed inter alia with the following prayer:-

“It is, therefore, prayed that your Lordships may graciously be pleased to admit the Writ Petition, call for the records from the Office of the Opp Parties, issue Rule NISI calling upon the Opp parties to show cause as to why the office letters/orders vide Annexures-2,3 and 4 shall not be quashed,

And as to why the Opp. Parties shall not be directed not to re-open the Disciplinary Proceeding No.19 dtd.20.01.2018 in any form/manner holding the same as finally closed and disposed off on exoneration of the petitioner from all the charges levelled against him in pursuance of Annexure-1,

And in the event the Opp Parties fail to show cause or show insufficient cause, the said Rule be made absolute and the Writ Petition be allowed issuing writ in the nature of Certiorari to quash office letters/orders under Annexures-2, 3 and 4 and appropriate writ in the nature of Mandamus be issued to the Opp Parties directing them to close the dtd.20.01.2018 Departmental Proceeding No.19 started for the second occasion after exoneration of the petitioner from all the charges.

And may further be pleased to pass any other further appropriate Writ (s), Order (s), Direction (s) as deemed fit and proper in the peculiar circumstances of the case.

And for this Act of kindness the Petitioner shall as in duty bound ever pray.”

It is contended that on the face of the earlier report submitted by the Enquiry Officer, the impugned order under Annexure-2 & 3 could not have been issued and the same is not permissible.

Mr. B.K. Sharma, learned Sr. Counsel appearing for the Opp. Parties-Corporation on the other hand contended that with appointment of the 2^nd Enquiry Officer vide order under Annexure-2 & 3, the proceeding in the meantime has already been finalized with imposition of punishment vide order dtd.02.04.2025.

Considering the submission made and the fact that after appointment of the fresh Enquiry Officer vide order at Annexure-2 & 3 and in absence of any interim order passed by this Court, the proceeding has been finalized with passing of the final order on 02.04.2025, it is the view of this Court that the prayer made in the writ petition has become infructuous.

Page 2 of 3.

However, it is open for the Petitioner to challenge the order of punishment so passed vide order dtd.02.04.2025 in accordance with law.

With the aforesaid liberty, the writ petition and the pending I.A. stand disposed of.

(BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY) Judge

Sneha

Signature Not Verified

Digitally Signed Signed by: SNEHANJALI PARIDA Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, C utta ck Date: 05-Dec-2025 18:17:05

Page 3 of 3.