Deepa Das Vs High Court of Orissa, Cuttack

2. The petitioner has invoked the writ jurisdiction of this Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India to explore the following relief:-

¶20

“ Under the facts and circumstances as narrated above it is humbly prayed that this Hon’ble Court may graciously be pleased to issue Rule Nisi calling upon the opposite parties to show cause and after hearing the parties be pleased to quash order passed in the D.P. 07 of 2023 dated 20.09.2024 and further direct the opposite parties for conducting fresh inquiry after supplying of the documents sought by the petitioner, and further be pleased to pass any order/orders as deemed fit and proper.”

¶21

3. The matter was heard at length on 06.11.2025 and following order was passed:-

¶22

Page 1 of 4

¶23

“ 1. Ms. Jasprit Kaur, learned counsel submits that she along with her associates have entered appearance and filed Vakalatnama on behalf of the petitioner, who was appearing in person earlier. Vakalatnama shall be taken on record. Scanned copy be updated. Name of the learned counsel shall be reflected in the cause list and case brief in place of "Petitioner in person".

¶24

2. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner at length and also deliberated on the points argued by her. The petitioner is also present in person as noticed by the Court.

¶25

With regard to the prayer made in the writ petition, in course of hearing the learned counsel, we asked to show us what is the stage of Disciplinary Proceeding, i.e. D.P. No.07 of 2023 initiated against the petitioner by the Disciplinary Authority and whether any order has been passed by the Disciplinary Authority; in response it is submitted that pursuant to the enquiry report annexed to the writ petition marked as Annexure-2 dated 20.09.2024, the petitioner has been asked to submit her response. It is submitted that on "18.03.2025 her response was submitted".

¶26

We do not find any letter dated 18.03.2025 annexed to the writ petition.

¶27

3. While hearing, we have further asked the learned counsel for the petitioner whether this Court in exercise of its writ jurisdiction can interfere before any decision is taken by the Disciplinary Authority. In response it is submitted that the 'petitioner is not provided' with the document(s) sought for.

¶28

We also requested the learned counsel for the petitioner to show us by which letter the petitioner has sought for the documents. In response, learned counsel for the petitioner refers to the letter dated 26.12.2018 which is marked as Annexure-6 and letter dated 15.02.2024 marked as Annexure-9. The said letters were placed by the learned counsel for the petitioner as part of her submissions for consideration.

¶29

Having gone through the said letters, we do not find that the petitioner has sought for any particular documents from the authority as she submitted.

¶30

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner refers to the letter dated 26.12.2018 (Page 146 of the writ petition) which

¶31

Page 2 of 4

¶32

reads "all the case records, all the registers, all the issued and received letters including confidential letters (in original), which I was dealing during my tenure from 25.11.2017 to 29.10.2018 at Nayagarh."

¶33

It seems from the above statement of the petitioner in the letter that the particulars of the records that is being sought for by her and how it is connected to the disciplinary proceeding cannot be deciphered.

¶34

5. At this stage, we do not wish to make any further observations regarding the contents of the letter dated 26.12.2018. The fact as it stands is that the petitioner seeks interference of this Court in the enquiry report dated 20.09.2024 which is pending consideration by the Disciplinary Authority.

¶35

6. To appreciate the contentions of the petitioner, we also required the learned counsel for the petitioner to disclose whether the Disciplinary Authority have taken any decision pursuant to the enquiry report; in response it is submitted that no decision has been taken by the Disciplinary Authority.

¶36

In such scenario, we sought for answer from the learned counsel for the petitioner whether at this stage, before the Disciplinary Authority has taken any decision, this Court can interfere in judicial review without the decision having been taken.

¶37

7. The learned counsel for the petitioner seeks and has adjournment.

¶38

List on 5th December, 2025.”

¶39

4. Today, when the matter was again taken up, Ms. J. Kaur, learned counsel for the petitioner attempted to answer the query put forth by this Court regarding the maintainability of the writ petition. She has relied upon two judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Amarendra Kumar Pandey vrs. Union of India and others , Civil Appeal Nos. 11473-11474 of 2018 and Union of India and others vrs. P. Gunasekaran , S.L.P. (Civil) No. 23631 of 2008.

¶40

Page 3 of 4

¶41

5. Perused the pleadings and the documents placed on record and analyzed the judgment cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner in the light of the fact of the present case. In both the cases cited by learned counsel for the petitioner, the proceedings were initiated after the final order in the departmental proceeding was passed imposing penalty. Therefore, the query put forth upon in the proceeding dated 06.11.2025 is not adequately answered. We are also satisfied that since the departmental proceeding is in the midst, this Court should be loath in interfering with the matter. Therefore, we declined to entertain this writ petition. However, it is open for the petitioner to raise all the points, as has been raised in the present petition, at the appropriate stage, if any cause of action survives.

¶42

6. With the aforesaid liberty, the writ petition stands disposed of.

¶43

(Manash Ranjan Pathak) Judge

¶44

(Sibo Sankar Mishra)

¶45

Judge

¶46

Ashok/Swarna

¶47

Signature Not Verified

¶48

Digitally Signed Signed by: ASHOK KUMAR JAGADEB MOHAPATRA Designation: Secretary Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa Date: 11-Feb-2026 18:13:36

¶49

Page 4 of 4

Deepa Das v. High Court of Orissa, Cuttack

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Deepa Das v. High Court of Orissa, Cuttack

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

State of Odisha Vs Subhalal Sahu

Hara Prasad Padhy Vs Kalpana Padhy

Temple City Institute of Technology (Tite) Khordha Vs State of Odisha

Sarada Devi Institute of Medical Sciences, Sarakana Vs State of Odisha

Lipsa Lita Patra Vs Bishnu Prasad Swain

Lalit Ranjan Gamango Vs Sasmita Sabar