Pradyumna Mohapatra vs State of Odisha

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2026 Supreme(Ori) 202

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY
Pradyumna Mohapatra – Appellant
Versus
State of Odisha – Respondent

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner:Ms. K.R. Choudhury, Advocate
For the Opp. Parties :Mr. A. Tripathy, Addl. Govt. Advocate

JUDGMENT :

Biraja Prasanna Satapathy, J.

1. This matter is taken up through hybrid mode.

2. Heard Ms. K.R. Choudhury, learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner and Mr. A. Tripathy, learned Addl. Govt. Advocate appearing for the Opp. Parties.

3. The present writ petition has been filed inter alia with the following prayer:-

“In the facts and under the circumstances stated above, the Hon’ble Court would graciously be pleased to admit this WRIT application, call for record and

i. Issue Rule NISI calling upon the Opp. Party to show cause, as to why the Order of punishment under Annexure-3 and the consequential Order under ANNEXURE-6 shall not be quashed; and if the they fail to show cause or show insufficient cause make the Rule absolute;

ii. Issue a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the O.P.to grant all consequential service benefits as admissible under the law.

iii. Issue any appropriate writ(s)/direction(s)/order(s) deemed fit in the fact and circumstances of the case.”

4. Learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner contended that while continuing in service, the proceeding in question was initiated vide charge memo dtd.30.12.2014, because of the allegation of bigamy made by the w