Orissa High Court
WP(C)/23902/2022 of RAMESH CHANDRA BISWAL Vs STATE OF ORISSA on 3 September 2026
HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C) No.23902 of 2022 CNR No. ODHC010615152024 Ramesh Ch. Biswal …. Petitioner Ms. Sobhana Parida, Adv. appearing on behalf of Mr. A.B. Parida, Advocate -versus- State of Orissa & Ors. …. Opposite Parties Mr. B. Dash, Adv. for O.P.2 CORAM:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
W.P.(C) No.23902 of 2022
CNR No. ODHC010615152024
Ramesh Ch. Biswal
….
Petitioner
Ms. Sobhana Parida, Adv. appearing on behalf of Mr. A.B. Parida, Advocate
-versus-
State of Orissa & Ors.
….
Opposite Parties
Mr. B. Dash, Adv. for O.P.2
CORAM:
JUSTICE BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY
Order No.
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
ORDER
03.09.2026
05. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual/Physical) Mode.
2. Heard learned counsel appearing for the Parties.
3. Ms. S. Parida, learned counsel contended that Petitioner when was terminated from his services vide order dtd.24.11.2015 of Opposite Party No.4, challenging the same, Petitioner initially approached this Court in W.P.(C) No.936 of 2016. This Court vide order dtd.22.02.2016 issued notice of the Writ Petition.
3.1. It is contended that during pendency of the Writ Petition since Petitioner found that an appeal lies against the order of dismissal, he preferred an appeal before the
// 2 //
appellate authority-Opposite Party No.3 on 10.06.2022 under Annexure-6-Series. In support of delay in filing of the appeal, Petitioner also filed various documents.
3.2. It is contended that even though with regard to delay in filing of the appeal, Petitioner produced medical certificate and the admitted pendency of the Writ Petition in W.P.(C) No.936 of 2016 against the order of punishment so passed by the disciplinary authoirty but the appellate authority, on the ground of delay, rejected the appeal vide order dtd.28.06.2022 under Annexure-7.
3.3. It is contended that since challenging the order of termination, Petitioner approached this Court in W.P.(C) No.936 of 2016 and notice of the Writ Petition was also issued in the said Writ Petition and during pendency of the Writ Petition, Petitioner preferred an appeal, no delay could have attributed, even though an application was filed to condone the delay along with the appeal, with various documents.
3.4. It is further contended that such delay is covered as per the provisions contained under Section-14 of the Limitation Act.
3.5. It is accordingly contended that the appellate authority be directed to decide the appeal on merit with quashing of the impugned order dtd.28.06.2022 so passed under Annexure-7.
// 3 //
4. Learned Counsel appearing for the Opposite Parties on the other hand contended that since the appeal has been filed after six years of the order of termination and the document produced by the Petitioner in support of the delay in filing of the appeal was found not trustworthy, the appellate authority rejected the appeal on the ground of delay vide order dtd.28.06.2022 under Annexure-7 in W.P.(C) No.23902 of 2022.
4.1. It is also contended that since Petitioner during pendency of W.P.(C) No.936 of 2016, filed W.P.(C) No.23902 of 2022, without disclosing pendency of the earlier Writ Petition, Petitioner is not entitled to get any relief because of suppression of material fact.
5. Having heard learned counsel appearing for the Parties and considering the submissions made, it is found that Petitioner while continuing under the then CESU he was terminated from his services vide order dtd.24.11.2015, so passed by the concerned Executive Engineer. Petitioner challenging the same approached this Court by filing W.P.(C) No.936 of 2016.
5.1. Even though this Court issued notice of the Writ Petition vide order dtd.22.02.2016, but during pendency of the Writ Petition, Petitioner moved the appellate authority by filing the appeal on 10.06.2022 so enclosed as Annexure-6.
// 4 //
5.2. However, as found the appellate authority-Opposite Party No.3 dismissed the appeal vide order dtd.28.06.2022 under Annexure-7 on the ground of delay. It is the view of this Court that since challenging the order of termination so passed on 24.11.2015, Petitioner approached this Court in W.P.(C) No.936 of 2016 and during pendency of the Writ Petition, he moved the appellate authority, no delay could have been attributed, in view of the provisions contained under Section-14 of the Limitation Act. Not only that since it is a case of dismissal, the appellate authority should have decided the appeal on merit, instead of dismissing the same on the ground of delay.
6. Therefore, for the present this Court is inclined to quash order dtd.28.06.2022 so passed by Opposite Party No.3 under Annexure-7. While quashing the order under Annexure-7, this Court directs Opposite Party No.3, to take up of the appeal and pass appropriate order in accordance with law on merit and by giving an opportunity of hearing to the Petitioner, as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of four (4) months from the date of receipt of this order.
7. Accordingly, the Writ Petition stands disposed of.
(Biraja Prasanna Satapathy) Subrat
Judge Digitally Signed Signed by: SUBRAT KUMAR BARIK Reason: Authentication Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACK Date: 10-Sep-2026 17:17:16 Signature Not Verified