IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C) No. 20347 of 2025 CNR No.ODHC010512892025 Mandeep Singh ..... Petitioner Mr. S.K. Ojha, Advocate -versus- Union of India & Ors. ..... Opposite Parties Mr. D. Pattnayak, Sr. Panel Counsel CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY ORDER 13.08.2026 Order No. 06 W.P.(C) No. 20347 of 2025 & I.A. No. 22876 of 2025 1. This matter is taken up through hybrid mode. 2. Heard learned counsel for the Parties. 3. The present Writ Petition has been filed inter alia with the following prayer:- “Under the facts and circumstances stated above, it is therefore prayed that the Hon'ble Court may graciously be pleased to issue rule NISI calling upon the Opp. Parties to show cause as to why the writ in the nature of certiorari shall not be issued quashing the Charge sheet dated 13.11.2024 (Annex.1) and rejection order dated 15.07.2025 (Annex.11) holding the same are illegal and without competency. Further, writ in the nature of Mandamus shall not be issued directing the Opp.Parties to change the IO being bias and direct for a de novo inquiry. Page 1 of 3. If the Opp. Parties failed to show cause or show insufficient cause, the rule may be made absolute. And further direction may be issued directing the Opp. Parties to restore the petitioner in the service with all consequential benefits; And further be pleased to pass any other order/orders as deemed fit and proper;

And for this act of kindness, the Petitioner shall as in duty bound every pray.” 4. Learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner contended that since wrong has been committed by the Opp. Parties with regard to appointment of Enquiry Officer and no opportunity has been given to file any reply to the charge memo, the proceeding so initiated against the Petitioner on 13.11.2024 under Annexure-1 is required to be quashed. 5. Mr. D. Pattnayak, learned Senior Panel Counsel on the other hand contended that since the Writ Petition is against initiation of the proceeding, the same is not maintainable. 5.1. It is also contended that in the meantime, during pendency of the Writ Petition, enquiry has already been completed and because of the interim order, the authorities are not in a position to proceed further. 6. Having heard learned counsel for the Parties and considering the submission made, this Court is not inclined to entertain the Writ Petition with the prayer as made. This Court permits the Disciplinary Authority- Opp. Party No.7 to proceed with the proceeding so initiated vide charge memo dated 13.11.2024 in Page 2 of 3. accordance with law and decide the issue by giving due opportunity of hearing to the Petitioner in terms of rules and regulations governing the field. 7. Accordingly, the Writ Petition along with I.A. stand disposed of. Interim order passed earlier stands vacated. (BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY) Judge Jyoti Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed

Signed by: JYOTIPRAVA BHOL Reason: Authentication Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA Date: 18-Aug-2026 11:57:17 Page 3 of 3.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C) No. 20347 of 2025 CNR No.ODHC010512892025 Mandeep Singh ..... Petitioner Mr. S.K. Ojha, Advocate -versus- Union of India & Ors. ..... Opposite Parties Mr. D. Pattnayak, Sr. Panel Counsel CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY ORDER 13.08.2026 Order No. 06 W.P.(C) No. 20347 of 2025 & I.A. No. 22876 of 2025 1. This matter is taken up through hybrid mode. 2. Heard learned counsel for the Parties. 3. The present Writ Petition has been filed inter alia with the following prayer:- “Under the facts and circumstances stated above, it is therefore prayed that the Hon'ble Court may graciously be pleased to issue rule NISI calling upon the Opp. Parties to show cause as to why the writ in the nature of certiorari shall not be issued quashing the Charge sheet dated 13.11.2024 (Annex.1) and rejection order dated 15.07.2025 (Annex.11) holding the same are illegal and without competency. Further, writ in the nature of Mandamus shall not be issued directing the Opp.Parties to change the IO being bias and direct for a de novo inquiry. Page 1 of 3. If the Opp. Parties failed to show cause or show insufficient cause, the rule may be made absolute. And further direction may be issued directing the Opp. Parties to restore the petitioner in the service with all consequential benefits; And further be pleased to pass any other order/orders as deemed fit and proper;

And for this act of kindness, the Petitioner shall as in duty bound every pray.” 4. Learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner contended that since wrong has been committed by the Opp. Parties with regard to appointment of Enquiry Officer and no opportunity has been given to file any reply to the charge memo, the proceeding so initiated against the Petitioner on 13.11.2024 under Annexure-1 is required to be quashed. 5. Mr. D. Pattnayak, learned Senior Panel Counsel on the other hand contended that since the Writ Petition is against initiation of the proceeding, the same is not maintainable. 5.1. It is also contended that in the meantime, during pendency of the Writ Petition, enquiry has already been completed and because of the interim order, the authorities are not in a position to proceed further. 6. Having heard learned counsel for the Parties and considering the submission made, this Court is not inclined to entertain the Writ Petition with the prayer as made. This Court permits the Disciplinary Authority- Opp. Party No.7 to proceed with the proceeding so initiated vide charge memo dated 13.11.2024 in Page 2 of 3. accordance with law and decide the issue by giving due opportunity of hearing to the Petitioner in terms of rules and regulations governing the field. 7. Accordingly, the Writ Petition along with I.A. stand disposed of. Interim order passed earlier stands vacated. (BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY) Judge Jyoti Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed

Signed by: JYOTIPRAVA BHOL Reason: Authentication Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA Date: 18-Aug-2026 11:57:17 Page 3 of 3.