The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C) No.6507 of 2023 In the matter of an application under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. ……………… Chittaranjan Bhoi …. Petitioner -versus- State of Odisha and Others …. Opposite Parties For Petitioner : Mr. L. Sahu, Advocate For Opp. Parties :
Legal Reasoning
Mr. A. Tripathy, AGA PRESENT: THE HONBLE JUSTICE BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY --------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Date of Hearing:03.09.2025 and Date of Judgment:03.09.2025 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Biraja Prasanna Satapathy, J. 1. Heard Mr. L. Sahu, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. A. Tripathy, learned Addl. Govt. Advocate for the State. 2. The present Writ Petition has been filed inter alia with the following prayer:- // 2 // to admit “It is therefore prays that this Hon’ble Court may be graciously pleased this writ application, issue notice, Rule NISI in the nature of certiorari or any other writ/writs as deem fit and the Departmental proceeding proper, quash No.17/Engg./05-0484/2012-18706 dtd.7.11.2012 vide Annexure-2 and to released all service benefits.” further be pleased 3. It is contended that petitioner while continuing in service, a proceeding was initiated against him vide Memorandum dated 07.11.2012 under Annexure-2. Even though petitioner duly filed his written statement of defence and participated in the proceeding but the same when was not disposed of for a pretty long period and thereby causing prejudice to him, petitioner approached this Court by filing W.P.(C) No.4999 of 2022. This Court vide order dated 22.02.2022 under Annexure-5 while disposing the Writ Petition, directed O.P. No.1-State to take necessary steps for disposal of the proceeding without any further delay. 3.1. It is contended that on the face of such order passed by this Court on 22.02.2022, when the proceeding was not finalized, petitioner again Page 2 of 11 // 3 // approached this Court by filing W.P.(C) No.30133 of 2022. This Court vide order 15.11.2022 while
Decision
disposing the Writ Petition, directed the O.P. No.1 to dispose of the proceeding within a period of 3 (three) months from the date of production of copy of the order. 3.2. It is contended that on the face of such further order passed by this Court on 15.11.2022, the proceeding since was not disposed of within the time stipulated, the present Writ Petition has been filed inter alia with the prayer as indicated hereinabove. It is contended that taking into account the nature of charge framed in the proceeding and its initiation vide Memorandum dtd. 07.11.2012, the proceeding since has not been disposed of as yet, the same is liable to be quashed in view of the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of State of Andhra Pradesh Vrs. N. Radhakishan, reported in AIR 1998 SC 1833, so followed by this Court in its order dtd.16.01.2023 in W.P.C(OAS) No.68 of 2017 Page 3 of 11 // 4 // (Pramod Kumar Sahu Vs. State of Odisha and Others) and W.P.C(OAC) No.3712 of 2016 disposed of on 6.09.2022 (Gangadhar Routray Vs. State of Odisha and Others). 3.3. Hon’ble Court in the case of N. Radhakishan in Para-19 & 20 has held as follows:- the that to be examined on “19. It is not possible to lay down any pre- determined principles applicable to all cases and in all situations where there is delay in concluding the disciplinary proceedings. Whether on that ground the disciplinary proceedings are to be terminated each case has facts and circumstances in that case. The essence of the matter is that the court has to take into consideration all relevant factors and to balance and weight them to determine if it is in the interest of clean and honest the disciplinary proceedings administration should be allowed to terminate after delay particularly when delay is abnormal and there is no explanation for the delay. The delinquent employee has a right that disciplinary proceedings against him are concluded expeditiously and he is not made to undergo mental agony and also monetary loss when these are unnecessarily prolonged without any fault on his part in delaying the proceedings. In considering whether delay has the disciplinary proceedings the Court has to consider the nature of charge, its complexity and on what account the delay has occurred. if the delay is unexplained prejudice to the delinquent employee is writ large on the face of it. It could also be seen as to how much disciplinary authority is serious in pursuing the charges against its employee. It is the basic principle of administrative justice that an officer entrusted with a particular job has to perform his duties honestly, efficiently and in accordance with the rules. If he deviates from this path he is to suffer a penalty prescribed. Normally, disciplinary proceedings should be allowed to take its course as per relevant rules but then delay defeats vitiated Page 4 of 11 // 5 // justice. Delay causes prejudice to the charged officer unless it can be shown that he is to or when there is proper explanation for the delay in conducting the disciplinary proceedings. Ultimately, the court is to balance these two diverse consideration.” 20. In the present case we find that without any reference to records merely on the report of the Director General, Anti-Corruption Bureau, charges were framed against the respondent and ten others, all in verbatim and without particularizing the role played by each of the officers charged. There were four charges against the respondent. With three of them he was not concerned. He offered explanation regarding the fourth charge but the disciplinary authority did not examine the same nor did it choose to appoint any inquiry officer even assuming that action was validly being initiated under 1991 Rules. There is no explanation whatsoever for delay in concluding the inquiry proceedings all these years. The case depended on records of the Department only and Director General, Anti Corruption bureau had pointed out that no witnesses had been examined before he gave his report. The Inquiry Officers, who had been appointed on after the other, had just to examine the records to see if the alleged deviations and constructions were illegal and unauthorised and then as to who was responsible for condoning or approving the same against the bye-laws. It is nobody’s case that respondent at any stage tried to obstruct or delay inquiry proceedings. The Tribunal rightly did not accept the explanations of the state as to why delay occurred. In fact there was hardly any explanation worth consideration. In the circumstances the Tribunal was justified in quashing the charge memo dated July 31, 1995 and directing the state respondent as per recommendation of the DPC ignoring memos dated October 27, 1995 and June 1, 1996. The Tribunal rightly did not quash these two later memos”. to promote the the 3.4. This Court in the case of Gangadhar Routray has held as follows in Para-23 to 26:- “23. Perused the materials available on record. This Court after going through the same finds that even though the notice of the writ petition was issued on 21.10.2016, but no Page 5 of 11 // 6 // the with enquiry counter affidavit has been filed by the State disputing the stand taken by the Petitioner with regard to his prayer for quashing of the proceeding on the ground of inordinate delay in concluding the same. This Court finds that for the alleged irregularity which took place during the year 1989-90, the proceeding was initiated i.e. on 19.09.2001 under after 11 years Annexure-1. In the said proceeding, though the Petitioner moved an application on 12.10.2001 under Annexure-2 with a prayer to provide the documents, but the said documents were never provided and the Opposite Party No.1 proceeded appointing enquiry officer vide order dated 31.12.2001 under Annexure-3. This Court further finds that in spite of such appointment of the enquiry officer no progress was made to the proceeding and the Petitioner in the meantime also retired from his service w.e.f. 31.05.2002. Even though vide order dated 22.05.2004 the enquiry was handed over to the Commissioner for Departmental Enquiries and the Petitioner was summoned vide letter dated 04.11.2004 under Annexure-8, but the proceeding once again was kept pending till issuance of the 1st show cause on 12.12.2014 under Annexure-10. Even though the Petitioner submitted his reply to the said 1st show cause on 29.12.2014, but once again the matter was kept pending till issuance of the impugned 2nd show cause on 03.10.2016 under Annexure-12. by 24. Therefore, from the aforesaid conduct, this Court is of the view that the Opposite Parties have caused inordinate delay in concluding the proceeding initiated against the Petitioner, even though the Petitioner is a retired employee since 31.05.2002. This Court is also of the view that even though the proceeding was initiated under Rule 15 of the OCS (CC&A) Rules, 1962, but the Petitioner was never provided with the document nor the concerned mutation record, which is subject matter of the charge, was allowed to be verified by the Petitioner on the ground that the said record is not traceable. Page 6 of 11 // 7 // 25. Therefore, this Court is of the view that not only there is inordinate delay in concluding the proceeding allowed to continue against a retired employee, but also the Opposite Parties more particularly Opposite Party No.1 has not followed the provisions contained under Rule 15 of OCS (CC&A) Rules, 1962. The Petitioner because of the pendency of the proceeding save and except sanction of provisional pension has been deprived from getting all retirement benefits save and except release of the 75% of the leave salary. 26. Therefore, in view of the decision relied by Mr. Mohanty and the materials available on record, this Court is of the prima-facie view that the Opposite Parties have failed to conclude the proceeding within a reasonable time. Therefore, this Court has got no hesitation in quashing the proceeding initiated against the Petitioner under Annexure1. While quashing the same, this Court directs the Opposite Parties to sanction and disburse all retirement benefits as due and admissible in favour of the Petitioner within a period of three months from the date of receipt of this order.” 3.5. Similarly, this Court in the case of Pramod Kumar Sahu has held as follows in Para-11:- “11. Having heard learned counsel for the Parties and taking into account the submissions made by Mr. Panda as well as the grounds taken in the writ petition, this Court relying on the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court as cited supra as well as the decision of this Court rendered in W.P.C.(OAC) inclined to quash the No. 3712 of 2016, proceeding the Petitioner on 30.12.2006 vide Annexure-2. While quashing he same, this Court directs the O.P. No. 1 to regularize the services of the Petitioner for the period from 18.03.2006 to 02.02.2009 as due and admissible within a period of one month from the date of receipt of this order. On such regularization of the service as directed, the Authority shall process the pension papers of the Petitioner and see that the initiated against is Page 7 of 11 // 8 // retiral benefits of the Petitioner is disbursed in his favour within a further period of three (3) months.” 4. Learned Addl. Govt. Advocate on the other hand contended that even though the proceeding was initiated vide Memorandum dated 07.11.2012, but since documents were seized by the Vigilance Department, the proceeding could not be disposed of within the stipulated time period. It is however contended that after receipt of the documents from the Vigilance, steps are being taken to conclude the same within a stipulated time period. 5. To the submission made by the learned Addl. Govt. Advocate, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that as admitted by the O.P. No.1 in their counter, the Vigilance records were duly received vide letter dated 12.06.2014 under Annexure-B/3. Therefore, the ground taken by the O.P. No.1 that the proceeding could not be finalized due to seizure of the documents by the Vigilance Department is not Page 8 of 11 // 9 // acceptable. Stand taken in Para-6(c) of the counter reads as follows:- “c) The order sheet also shows that the considerable delay occurred in conducting of the proceedings since the original documents had been seized by the Superintendent of Police, Vigilance, Sambalpur. The said documents were received from the S.P., Vigilance Sambalpur by i.e. BDO, Deogaon vide Letter No.2103, dated 12.06.2014 of the 0pp. Party No.3, after which the inquiry could proceed by the Inquiry Officer. the Marshalling Officer Copy of the Letter No.2103, dated 12.06.2014 of the Opp. Party No.3 is annexed herewith as Annexure- B/3.” 6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and considering the submissions made, this Court finds that the proceeding was initiated against the petitioner vide Memorandum dated 07.11.2012 under Annexure-2. On the face of such initiation of the proceeding in the year 2012, when the proceeding was not disposed of, petitioner approached this Court by filing W.P.(C) No.4999 of 2022. This Court vide order dated 22.02.2022, directed O.P. No.1 to dispose of the proceeding without any delay. Page 9 of 11 // 10 // 6.1. On the face of such order, when the proceeding was not disposed of, petitioner again approached this Court by filing W.P.(C) No.30133 of 2022. This Court vide order dated 15.11.2022 though allowed further 3 (three) months’ time to dispose of the proceeding, but the same was not disposed of and accordingly the present Writ Petition was filed with the prayer to quash the proceeding on the ground of inordinate delay. 6.2. This Court after going through the materials available on record, finds that O.P. No.1 received all the documents from the Vigilance Authority on 12.06.2014 vide Annexure-B/3. Therefore, the plea taken by the O.P. No.1 that because of the seizure of the document by the Vigilance Authority, the proceeding could not be finalized is not acceptable to this Court. 6.3. Since the proceeding of the year 2012 has not yet been disposed of on the face of successive orders Page 10 of 11 // 11 // passed by this Court in W.P.(C) Nos. No.4999 & 30133 of 2022, placing reliance on the decisions as cited (supra) and the fact that petitioner is no way responsible for any such delay, this Court is inclined to quash the proceeding initiated against the petitioner vide Memorandum dated 07.11.2012 under Annexure-2. While quashing the proceeding dated 07.11.2012, this Court allows the Writ Petition. 7. The Writ Petition accordingly stands disposed of. (Biraja Prasanna Satapathy) Judge Orissa High Court, Cuttack Dated the 3rd September, 2025/Basudev Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BASUDEV SWAIN Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Date: 09-Sep-2025 14:38:38 Page 11 of 11