Orissa High Court
Pradipta Kumar Dharua vs State Of Odisha & Ors. .... Opposite ... on 17 September, 2025
Author: Biraja Prasanna Satapathy
Bench: Biraja Prasanna Satapathy
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
W.P.(C) No.39249 of 2023
In the matter of an application under Articles 226 & 227 of the
Constitution of India.
..................
Pradipta Kumar Dharua .... Petitioner
-versus-
State of Odisha & Ors. .... Opposite Parties
For Petitioner : Mr. K.K. Swain, Advocate
For Opp. Parties : Mr. M.R. Mohanty
Addl. Govt. Advocate
PRESENT:
THE HON'BLE JUSTICE BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Date of Hearing: 17.09.2025 and Date of Judgment: 17.09.2025
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Biraja Prasanna Satapathy, J.
1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Mode.
2. Heard Mr. K.K. Swain, learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner and Mr. M.R. Mohanty, learned Addl. Govt. Advocate appearing for the Opp. Parties.
// 2 //
3. The present writ petition has been filed inter alia challenging order dtd.06.10.2023 so passed by Opp. Party No. 2 under Annexure-3. Vide the said order Petitioner was dismissed from his services w.e.f. the date of issue of the said order.
4. Learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner contended that Petitioner while continuing in service having been appointed and joined on 17.10.2003 with his date of regularization as 17.10.2009, a proceeding was initiated before the State Level Scrutiny Committee. The said Committee vide order dtd.21.04.2016 under Annexure-2 cancelled the certificate basing on which Petitioner got the benefit of appointment.
4.1. Learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner contended that challenging such order passed by the State Level Scrutiny Committee on 21.04.2016 communicated vide letter dtd.03.05.2016, Petitioner approached this Court by filing W.P.(C) No. 9141 of 2016. It is contended that this Court vide order dtd.17.08.2016 stayed the operation of the impugned order so passed by the State Level Scrutiny Committee and such an interim order was extended from time to time. 4.2. It is contended that in view of the interim order passed by this Court in W.P.(C) No. 9141 of 2016, Petitioner was allowed to Page 2 of 8 // 3 // continue as before. However, while so continuing placing reliance on the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Asian Resurfacing of Road Agency Private Ltd. & Anr. Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation reported in AIR 2018 SC 2039, Petitioner was dismissed from his services vide the impugned order dtd.06.10.2023, inter alia on the ground that in view of the order passed by the Apex Court in the case of Asian Resurfacing of Road Agency Private Ltd. as cited (supra), the interim order since has not been extended, stands lapsed.
4.3. Learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner contended that the decision rendered by the Apex Court in the case of Asian Resurfacing of Road Agency Private Ltd. as cited (supra) was reappreciated by a Constitution Bench of the Apex Court in Criminal Appeal No. 3589 of 2023 (High Court Bar Association, Allahabad Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.). View expressed by the Apex Court in para 36 to 38 of the said Judgment reads as follows:-
"36. Hence, with greatest respect to the Bench which decided the case, we are unable to concur with the directions issued in paragraphs 36 and 37 of the decision in the case of Asian Resurfacing1. We hold that there cannot be automatic vacation of stay granted by the High Court. We do not approve the direction issued to decide all the cases in which an interim stay has been granted on a day-to-day basis within a time frame. We hold that Page 3 of 8 // 4 // such blanket directions cannot be issued in the exercise of the jurisdiction under Article 142 of the Constitution of India. We answer both the questions framed in paragraph 5 above in the negative.
37. Subject to what we have held earlier, we summarise our main conclusions as follows:
a. A direction that all the interim orders of stay of proceedings passed by every High Court automatically expire only by reason of lapse of time cannot be issued in the exercise of the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 142 of the Constitution of India;
b. Important parameters for the exercise of the jurisdiction under Article 142 of the Constitution of India which are relevant for deciding the reference are as follows:
(i) The jurisdiction can be exercised to do complete justice between the parties before the Court. It cannot be exercised to nullify the benefits derived by a large number of litigants based on judicial orders validly passed in their favour who are not parties to the proceedings before this Court;
(ii) Article 142 does not empower this Court to ignore the substantive rights of the litigants;
(iii) While exercising the jurisdiction under Article 142 of the Constitution of India, this Court can always issue procedural directions to the Courts for streamlining procedural aspects and ironing out the creases in the procedural laws to ensure expeditious and timely disposal of cases. However, while doing so, this Court cannot affect the substantive rights of those litigants who are not parties to the case before it. The Page 4 of 8 // 5 // right to be heard before an adverse order is passed is not a matter of procedure but a substantive right; and
(iv) The power of this Court under Article 142 cannot be exercised to defeat the principles of natural justice, which are an integral part of our jurisprudence.
c. Constitutional Courts, in the ordinary course, should refrain from fixing a time-bound schedule for the disposal of cases pending before any other Courts. Constitutional Courts may issue directions for the time-bound disposal of cases only in exceptional circumstances. The issue of prioritising the disposal of cases should be best left to the decision of the concerned Courts where the cases are pending; and d. While dealing with the prayers for the grant of interim relief, the High Courts should take into consideration the guidelines incorporated in paragraphs 34 and 35 above.
38. We clarify that in the cases in which trials have been concluded as a result of the automatic vacation of stay based only on the decision in the case of Asian Resurfacing1, the orders of automatic vacation of stay shall remain valid." 4.4. It is contended that in view of the subsequent decision passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of High Court Bar Association, Allahabad as cited (supra), impugned order of termination passed against the Petitioner is no more sustainable in the eye of law. It is accordingly contended that the impugned order be set aside and Opp. Party No. 2 be directed to reinstate of the Petitioner. Page 5 of 8
// 6 //
5. Learned Addl. Govt. Advocate on the other hand placing reliance on the stand taken in the counter affidavit, contended that the certificate basing on which Petitioner got the benefit of appointment, was the subject matter of challenge before the State Level Scrutiny Committee. The Committee vide order dtd.21.04.2016 so communicated on 03.05.2016 under Annexure-2, when cancelled the certificate and issued various directions, no action was taken against the Petitioner because of the interim order passed by this Court on 17.08.2016 in W.P.(C) No. 9141 of 2016. However, in view of the nature of the order passed by the Apex Court in the case of Asian Resurfacing of Road Agency Private Ltd. as cited (supra), the order of dismissal was passed by Opp. Party No. 2.
5.1. It is contended that by the time such an order was passed, since order passed by the Apex Court in the case of Asian Resurfacing of Road Agency Private Ltd. was in force, no illegality or irregularity can be found with such action of Opp. Party No. 2. It is accordingly contended that no interference is called for. 5.2. However, it is fairly contended that view expressed by the Apex Court in the case of Asian Resurfacing of Road Agency Private Ltd. Page 6 of 8
// 7 // as cited (supra) has been dealt with by the Apex Court in the case of High Court Bar Association, Allahabad as cited (supra).
6. Having heard learned counsel appearing for the Parties and considering the submissions made, this Court finds that while continuing in service, a proceeding was initiated against the Petitioner before the State Level Scrutiny Committee. As found, the Committee vide order dtd.21.04.2016 when cancelled the certificate and issued various directions, Petitioner challenging such order passed by the Committee, approached this Court by filing W.P.(C) No. 9141 of 2016. It is not disputed that this Court while entertaining the writ petition, passed an interim order on 17.08.2016 and said order was allowed to continue.
6.1. However, during subsistence of the said interim order, basing on the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Asian Resurfacing of Road Agency Private Ltd. as cited (supra), Petitioner was dismissed from his services vide order dtd.06.10.2023 under Annexure-3 of Opp. Party No. 2. Placing reliance on the subsequent decision of the Apex Court in the case of High Court Bar Association, Allahabad as cited (supra), it is the view of this Court that the ground on which Petitioner was so dismissed, is no more sustainable.
Page 7 of 8
// 8 // 6.2. Therefore, this Court while quashing order dtd.06.10.2023 under Annexure-3, directs Opp. Party No. 3 to reinstate the Petitioner in his services with passing of an appropriate order within a period of three (3) weeks from the date of receipt of this order. However, it is observed that such reinstatement and continuance will be subject to final outcome of W.P.(C) No. 9141 of 2016. The break period of service however be regularized on notional basis and be treated as qualifying service for all other purposes.
7. The writ petition accordingly stands disposed of with the aforesaid observation and direction.
(BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY) Judge Orissa High Court, Cuttack Dated the 17th of September, 2025/Sneha Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: SNEHANJALI PARIDA Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Date: 20-Sep-2025 16:51:16 Page 8 of 8