Dr. Pradeep Raj Karat v. State Of Odisha
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
W.P (C) No.7878 of 2022 Dr. Pradeep Raj Karat .....
Petitioners Mr. S.K. Ojha, Advocate Vs.
State of Odisha & Ors.
.....
Opposite Parties Mr. A.K. Mishra, AGA (O.Ps.1 & 2) Mr. P.K. Parhi, ASGI (O.P.3)
CORAM:
DR. JUSTICE B.R. SARANGI MR. JUSTICE G. SATAPATHY
ORDER
23.08.2022 Order No.
This matter is taken up through hybrid mode.
2.
Mr. P.K. Parhi, learned Assistant Solicitor General of India enters appearance for opposite party no.3 by filing memo of appearance in Court today. The same be kept on record. 3.
Heard Mr. S.K. Ojha, learned counsel for the petitioner; Mr. A.K. Mishra, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the State-opposite parties no.1 & 2 and Mr. P.K. Parhi, learned Assistant Solicitor General of India appearing for opposite party no.3.
4.
The petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking to quash the order dated 16.09.2021 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Cuttack Bench, Cuttack in O.A. No.401/2020 and further to issue direction to opposite parties no.1 & 2 to conclude the proceeding basing on the Inquiry Report submitted on 12.08.2014, within a stipulated period.
5.
Mr. S.K. Ojha, learned counsel for the petitioner contended
that the petitioner confines this writ petition to the prayer seeking direction to the opposite parties to conclude the proceeding initiated against him on the basis of Inquiry Report submitted on 12.08.2014.
6.
Mr. A.K. Mishra, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the State-opposite parties contended that if the petitioner confines this writ petition to the prayer seeking direction to the opposite parties to conclude the proceeding, let such direction may be issued to the authority.
7.
Considering the contentions raised by learned counsel for the parties, but, however, without delving into the merits of the case, this Court directs opposite parties no.1 & 2 to conclude the proceeding initiated against the petitioner, on the basis of Inquiry Report submitted by the Inquiry Officer on 12.08.2014, as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of four months from the date of production/communication of certified copy of this order.
8.
With the above observation and direction, the writ petition stands disposed of.
9.
Issue urgent certified copy as per rules.
Alok/Subhasmita (DR. B.R. SARANGI) JUDGE (G. SATAPATHY) JUDGE