IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK WP(C) No. 17690 of 2026 Sanjoy Dey ..... Petitioner Mr. M.M. Pattanayak, Advocate -versus- Union of India & Ors. ..... Opposite Parties Mr. Sidharth Das, Advocate (for O.P. Nos.2 & 3) CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY ORDER 02.07.2026 Order No. 03 1. This matter is taken up through hybrid mode. 2. Heard learned counsel appearing for the parties. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner contended that since the charges in both the Departmental Proceeding and Criminal Proceeding are same, Petitioner will be seriously prejudiced, if the Departmental Proceeding is finalised prior to finalization of the Criminal Proceeding so initiated in CBI/AC-II, New Delhi P.S. Case No. RC 2172024A0O10 corresponding to TR Case No.9/2024 pending before the Court of Special Judge, CBI-I, Bhubaneswar. 4. It is contended that since the charges in both the proceedings are same, Petitioner if will disclose his stand in the Departmental Proceeding, that may adversely affect his stand in the Criminal Proceeding. It is also contended that in similar matter this Court while permitting the department to proceed with the Page 1 of 3. Departmental Proceeding, has restrained then to pass the final order till disposal of the Criminal Proceeding.

5. It is accordingly contended that the Departmental Proceeding so initiated against the Petitioner vide Memorandum dated 08.04.2026 under Annexure-3 may not be finalised till disposal of the Criminal Proceeding in TR Case No.9/2024. 6. Mr. S. Das, learned counsel appearing for the Corporation vehemently contended that the charges being different in both the proceedings, Petitioner is not eligible to get the benefit of the order which is normally being passed by this Court. 7. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, considering the submissions made and after going through the charges available in the Criminal Proceeding and the Departmental Proceeding, this court is of the view, that the charges in the Departmental Proceeding, are the outcome of the initiation of the Criminal Proceeding against the Petitioner. 8. In that view of the matter, this Court is of the view that the Departmental Proceeding if will be finalised prior to disposal of the Criminal Proceeding, Petitioner will be seriously prejudiced. 9. Accordingly, this Court while permitting the Departmental Authority to proceed with the Departmental Proceeding in accordance with law, but observe that the Departmental proceeding shall not be finalised till, disposal of the Criminal Proceeding. It is also open for the Corporation to take appropriate steps for early disposal of the Criminal Proceeding in the Court of learned CBI Judge, Bhubaneswar in TR No.9/2024. Page 2 of 3.

10. With the aforesaid observations and directions, the Writ Petition stands disposed of. (BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY) Judge Sipra Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: SIPRA MUDULI Reason: Authentication Location: OHC, Odisha Date: 03-Jul-2026 10:49:44 Page 3 of 3.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK WP(C) No. 17690 of 2026 Sanjoy Dey ..... Petitioner Mr. M.M. Pattanayak, Advocate -versus- Union of India & Ors. ..... Opposite Parties Mr. Sidharth Das, Advocate (for O.P. Nos.2 & 3) CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY ORDER 02.07.2026 Order No. 03 1. This matter is taken up through hybrid mode. 2. Heard learned counsel appearing for the parties. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner contended that since the charges in both the Departmental Proceeding and Criminal Proceeding are same, Petitioner will be seriously prejudiced, if the Departmental Proceeding is finalised prior to finalization of the Criminal Proceeding so initiated in CBI/AC-II, New Delhi P.S. Case No. RC 2172024A0O10 corresponding to TR Case No.9/2024 pending before the Court of Special Judge, CBI-I, Bhubaneswar. 4. It is contended that since the charges in both the proceedings are same, Petitioner if will disclose his stand in the Departmental Proceeding, that may adversely affect his stand in the Criminal Proceeding. It is also contended that in similar matter this Court while permitting the department to proceed with the Page 1 of 3. Departmental Proceeding, has restrained then to pass the final order till disposal of the Criminal Proceeding.

5. It is accordingly contended that the Departmental Proceeding so initiated against the Petitioner vide Memorandum dated 08.04.2026 under Annexure-3 may not be finalised till disposal of the Criminal Proceeding in TR Case No.9/2024. 6. Mr. S. Das, learned counsel appearing for the Corporation vehemently contended that the charges being different in both the proceedings, Petitioner is not eligible to get the benefit of the order which is normally being passed by this Court. 7. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, considering the submissions made and after going through the charges available in the Criminal Proceeding and the Departmental Proceeding, this court is of the view, that the charges in the Departmental Proceeding, are the outcome of the initiation of the Criminal Proceeding against the Petitioner. 8. In that view of the matter, this Court is of the view that the Departmental Proceeding if will be finalised prior to disposal of the Criminal Proceeding, Petitioner will be seriously prejudiced. 9. Accordingly, this Court while permitting the Departmental Authority to proceed with the Departmental Proceeding in accordance with law, but observe that the Departmental proceeding shall not be finalised till, disposal of the Criminal Proceeding. It is also open for the Corporation to take appropriate steps for early disposal of the Criminal Proceeding in the Court of learned CBI Judge, Bhubaneswar in TR No.9/2024. Page 2 of 3.

10. With the aforesaid observations and directions, the Writ Petition stands disposed of. (BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY) Judge Sipra Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: SIPRA MUDULI Reason: Authentication Location: OHC, Odisha Date: 03-Jul-2026 10:49:44 Page 3 of 3.