Kartikeswar Mohanty Vs State of Odisha

3. Pursuant to the order dtd.26.09.2025, learned Addl. Standing Counsel for the State produced the instruction so provided by the ARCS, Balasore, Circle, Balasore vide letter dtd.14.11.2025. The same be kept in record.

¶15

4. Basing on the instruction, it is contended that the revision so filed by the Petitioner against the order of suspension has now been fixed for hearing in the month of February, 2026.

¶16

5 . Learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner while assailing the impugned order dtd.12.09.2025 under Annexure-12 so passed by Opposite Party No.2, contended that challenging the order of suspension so passed by Opposite Party No.3 on 16.07.2025 under

¶17

// 2 //

¶18

Annexure-9, Petitioner moved Opposite Party No.2 in Revision Case No.24 of 2025.

¶19

5.1 . It is contended that Opposite Party No.2 vide order dtd. 05.08.2025 while issuing notice of the matter posted the main case to 04.10.2025 for counter. While issuing the notice of the matter, Opposite Party No.2 passed an interim order by staying the operation of the order of suspension so passed on 16.07.2025.

¶20

5.2 . It is contended that even though the next date was posted to 04.10.2025 vide order dtd.05.08.2025 under Annexure-11, but without giving any opportunity of hearing to the Petitioner, interim order passed on 05.08.2025 was vacated vide the impugned order dtd.12.09.2025 under Annexure-12.

¶21

5.3 . It is contended that since prior to vacating the interim order, Petitioner was never heard and such an order was passed even though the matter was originally posted to 04.10.2025, vide order under Annexure-11, the said order is not sustainable in the eye of law.

¶22

6. Learned Addl. Standing Counsel for the State at this point of time contended that Opposite Party No.2 be directed to decide Revision Case No.24 of 2025 within a stipulated time period so that grievance of the Petitioner can be mitigated.

¶23

7. Having heard learned counsel appearing for the Parties and considering the submissions, this Court finds that challenging the order of suspension so passed on

¶24

Page 2 of 3

¶25

// 3 //

¶26

16.07.2025 under Annexure-9, Petitioner moved Opposite Party No.2 in Revision Case No.24 of 2025.

¶27

7.1 . As found vide order dtd.05.08.2025 under Annexure-11, Opposite Party No.2 while issuing notice of the matter passed an interim order staying the operation of the order of suspension so passed on 16.07.2025. Vide the said order the matter was posted to 04.10.2025. But vide the impugned order dtd.12.09.2025, interim order passed on 05.08.2025 was vacated.

¶28

7 . 2 . Since prior to passing of the impugned order, Petitioner was never heard and no such date was fixed to take up the matter on 12.09.2025, on the ground of noncompliance of the principle of natural justice, this Court is inclined to quash order dtd.12.09.2025 so passed by Opposite Party No.2 under Annexure-12. While quashing the said order, this Court directs Opposite Party No.2 to dispose of the Revision Case No.24 of 2025 in accordance with law and by giving opportunity of hearing to the parties concerned on or before 31.03.2026. Till disposal of the revision case as directed, interim order passed on 05.08.2025 shall continue.

¶29

8. Accordingly, the Writ Petition stands disposed of.

¶30

Signature Not Verified

¶31

Subrat Digitally Signed Signed by: SUBRAT KUMAR BARIK Reason: Authentication Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CU TTACK Date: 08-Jan-2026 10:47:07

¶32

(Biraja Prasanna Satapathy)

¶33

Judge

¶34

Page 3 of 3