Orissa High Court
WP(C)/22154/2026 of MANORANJAN TAREI @ TARAI Vs STATE OF ODISHA on 3 September 2026
HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C ) No.22154 of 2026 CNR No. ODHC010489742026 Manoranjan Tarei @ Tarai …. Petitioner Mr. L. Achari, Adv. -versus- State of Odisha & Others …. Opposite Parties Mr. S.P. Das, ASC CORAM: THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
W.P.(C ) No.22154 of 2026
CNR No. ODHC010489742026
Manoranjan Tarei @ Tarai
….
Petitioner
Mr. L. Achari, Adv.
-versus-
State of Odisha & Others
….
Opposite Parties
Mr. S.P. Das, ASC
CORAM:
THE HON’BLE MR.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
2.
1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid
Arrangement (Virtual/Physical) Mode.
2. Heard learned counsel appearing for the parties.
3. It is contended that because of implication of the Petitioner in Rasgovindpur P.S. Case No.226 dtd.19.11.2020, a Disciplinary Proceeding was also initiated against the Petitioner vide charge-sheet dtd.29.01.2021 under Annexure-7 of Opp. Party No.3. It is contended that in the said proceeding, Petitioner was imposed with the punishment vide order dtd.11.10.2021 under Annexre-13 with punishment of forfeiture of increment for a period of 9 months with cumulative effect and the period of 1(one) day was treated as No Pay and the suspension period was treated as such.
// 2 //
3.1. It is contended that even though no appeal was filed against such an order, but Petitioner when was acquitted in the Criminal Proceeding vide judgment dtd.11.03.2025 in Criminal Revision No.152 of 2024 under Annexure-14, Petitioner made an application before Opp. Party No.3 to set aside the punishment so imposed in his order dtd.11.10.2021, but such prayer of the Petitioner was rejected by Opp. Party No.3 vide his order dtd.11.04.2025 under Annexure-15.
3.2. It is contended that since the Disciplinary Proceeding was initiated because of the implication of the Petitioner in the Criminal Proceeding and in the Criminal Proceeding, Petitioner has been acquitted by this Court in his judgment dtd.11.03.2025 under Anenxure-14, Opp. Party No.3 should have set aside the order of punishment passed in Disciplinary Proceeding vide order dt.11.10.2021 under Annexure-13. But Opp. Party No.3 without proper appreciation, rejected such prayer vide order dtd.11.04.2025 under Annexure-15 series. It is accordingly contended that the impugned order of punishment passed under Annexure-13, so confirmed by the Disciplinary authority-Opp. Party No.3 vide his order dtd.11.04.2025 needs interference of this Court.
// 3 //
4. Learned Addl. Govt. Advocate on the other hand contended that since the impugned order is an appealable one, the Writ Petition is not maintainable.
5. At this point of time, learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner contended that since the delay has occurred in filing the appeal, he may be permitted to move the appellate authority and the delay in filing the appeal be condoned.
6. Having heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and considering the submission made, this Court while disposing the Writ Petition permits the Petitioner to move the Appellate authority.
6.1. It is observed that if any such appeal will be filed within a period of three (3) weeks hence, the Appellate authority shall entertain the appeal and decide the issue on merit without insisting on any delay.
7. The writ Petition accordingly stands disposed of with the aforesaid liberty.
(Biraja Prasanna Satapathy)
Judge
sangita Digitally Signed Signed by: SANGITA PATRA Reason: authentication of order Location: high court of orissa, cuttack Date: 11-Sep-2026 13:52:50 Signature Not Verified