Orissa High Court
WP(C)/14435/2026 of SUBAS CHANDRA DAS Vs UNION OF INDIA on 25 June 2026
of 2 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK WP(C) No.14435 of 2026 Subas Chandra Das …. Petitioner Mr. D. Mohanty, Adv. -Versus- Union of India & others …. Opp. Parties Mr. P.K. Parhi, DSGI Ms. Pratima Nayak, CGC CORAM: JUSTICE KRISHNA S. DIXIT JUSTICE CHITTARANJAN DASH Order No.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
WP(C) No.14435 of 2026
Subas Chandra Das
….
Petitioner
Mr. D. Mohanty, Adv.
-Versus-
Union of India & others
….
Opp. Parties
Mr. P.K. Parhi, DSGI
Ms. Pratima Nayak, CGC
CORAM:
JUSTICE KRISHNA S. DIXIT
JUSTICE CHITTARANJAN DASH
Order No.
02.
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
1
Decisions referred to
In this index
1
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
25.06.2026
Petitioner-delinquent employee is invoking the writ jurisdiction of this Court for assailing the Central Administrative Tribunal’s order dated 10.04.2026, which reads as under:
“Heard learned counsel for both sides.
Applicant has filed this O.A. praying for setting aside the inquiry report dated 10.02.2026 (A/10) as the same is biased and submitted with all material irregularity.
As an interim relief, he has prayed that further proceedings based on the impugned inquiry report as submitted by the IO may be stayed till further order of this Tribunal/till conclusion of the present O.A.
Learned counsel for the respondents submitted that he will be filing counter and objection to the l.R. in this case and the O.A. may be finally heard.
Since inquiry report has been submitted, we are not inclined to stay the same at this stage especially, in view of the submission of the learned counsel for the respondents that he will be filing counter and objection to I.R. shortly. Accordingly, I.R. is rejected.
Matter may be put up on 29.04.2026 by which time respondents shall file their counter and objection to l.R.”
2. Learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that the Tribunal ought to have stayed the inquiry report that has put in challenge in OA No.132
of 2026 and in not staying the same, an error of great magnitude apparent on the face of record perpetrated to the disadvantage of the Petitioner himself and therefore, this Court should grant indulgence in the matter.
3. Mr. Parhi, learned DSGI appearing for the Union of India submits that ordinarily inquiry report is not challengeable at all since it is not enforceable proprio vigore. He further submits that it is always open to the employee to submit his representation/explanation to the inquiry report in terms of the decision of the Apex Court in Union of India v. Mohd. Ramzan Khan; AIR 1991 SC 471 and only if an adverse order is made based on the inquiry report, then there will be an actionable claim. We agree with the same.
In the above circumstances, Petition is disposed off without interference requesting the Central Administrative Tribunal to decide the matter at the earliest, since the matter lies in a narrow compass. All contentions are kept open.
(Krishna S. Dixit) Judge
(Chittaranjan Dash) Judge
Prasant
Digitally Signed Signed by: PRASANT KUMAR SAHOO Reason: Authentication Location: Orissa High Court Date: 25-Jun-2026 19:21:01 Signature Not Verified