Juli Patel Vs State of Odisha

2. The present Writ Petition has been filed inter alia challenging the 2^nd show-cause notice issued vide Officer order dt.16.11.2023 under Annexure-5.

¶15

3. Learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner while assailing the impugned notice contended that since the inquiry has been conducted by an officer, who should not have been appointed, basing on such report of the Inquiry Officer, Petitioner could not have been issued with the 2^nd show-cause with

¶16

// 2 //

¶17

the proposed punishment. It is accordingly contended that the 2^nd show-cause with the proposed punishment is not sustainable in the eye of law.

¶18

4. Mr. C.K. Pradhan, learned Addl. Govt. Advocate on the otherhand raised a preliminary objection with regard to maintainability of the Writ Petition contending inter alia that the Writ Petition since has been filed against a show-cause, the same is not maintainable.

¶19

4.1. It is also contended that after initiation of the proceeding, Petitioner never challenged the appointment of the Inquiry Officer and instead participated in the inquiry. Not only that, after submission of the inquiry report, Petitioner also gave his reply to the 1^st show-cause. However, at the stage of issuance of 2^nd show-cause, the present Writ Petition has been filed. It is contended that since appointment of the Inquiry Officer was never challenged by the Petitioner and she participated in the inquiry, the ground taken in the Wri Petition while assailing the impugned show-case is not sustainable.

¶20

5. Having heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and considering the submission made,

¶21

Page 2 of 4

¶22

// 3 //

¶23

this Court finds that in the proceeding initiated against the Petitioner vide Memorandum dt.04.05.2023, Petitioner participated in the inquiry after filing her written statement of defence. After submission of the inquiry report, Petitioner also gave her reply to the 1^st show-cause.

¶24

5.1. In that view of the matter, the stand taken in the Writ petition that Petitioner is aggrieved with regard to the appointment of the Inquiry Officer cannot be accepted. Since Petitioner without raising any objection participated in the inquiry and after submission of the inquiry report, she submitted the reply to the 1^st show-cause, it is the view of this Court that the Writ Petition filed challenging the 2^nd show-cause on the grounds indicated in the Writ Petition, is not entertainable.

¶25

5.2. Therefore, this Court while is not inclined to interfere with the 2^nd show-cause issued on 16.11.2023 under Annexure-5, permits the Petitioner to submit her reply to the same. Since it is contended that such a reply will be filed within a period of 4(four) weeks hence, Petitioner is permitted to file the same within the aforesaid time period before the Disciplinary Authority-Opp. Party N.o.4. On submission of the reply to the 2^nd show-cause, the proceeding be disposed of in accordance with

¶26

Page 3 of 4

¶27

// 4 //

¶28

law. Opp. Party No.4 is directed to dispose of the proceeding as expeditiously as possible preferably by the end of February, 2026.

¶29

5.3. Interim order passed on 12.01.2024 stands vacated.

¶30

5.4. The I.A stands disposed of.

¶31

(Biraja Prasanna Satapathy) sangita Judge