Orissa High Court
Case Details
Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 03-Oct-2024 17:51:26 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C) No.21603 of 2016 (In the matter of an application under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, 1950). Basanta Kumar Martha …. Petitioner(s) -versus- State of Odisha & Ors. …. Opposite Party (s) Advocates appeared in the case throughHybrid Mode: For Petitioner(s) For Opposite Party (s) : : Mr. Krishna Chandra Sahu, Adv. Mr. G.R. Mohapatra, ASC Mr.Somanath Mishra, Adv. (for O.Ps.3 and 4) CORAM: DR. JUSTICE S.K. PANIGRAHI DATE OF HEARING:-14.08.2024 DATE OF JUDGMENT: -24.09.2024 Dr. S.K. Panigrahi, J. 1. The petitioner, through the Writ Petition, challenges the legality of disciplinary proceeding initiated against the petitioner vide Memorandum No.16, dated 1.1.2003 of the Housing and Urban Development Department and is continuing till todayalthough he has been retired since 31.7.2013. I. FACTUAL MATRIX OF THE CASE: 2. The brief fact of the case as presented by the Petitioner is that: Page 1 of 17
Facts
Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 03-Oct-2024 17:51:26 (i) In compliance with Order No. 39213/OSHB dated 15.12.1992, the petitioner was initially appointed as Assistant Law Officer under the Odisha State Housing Board (OSHB) to fill an existing vacancy, with a pay scale of Rs. 2000-60-2300-EB-75-3200-100-3500/-, along with applicable allowances as permissible to OSHB employees at the relevant time. (ii) The petitioner retired on 31.7.2013 (AN) upon reaching the age of superannuation, as communicated through Letter No. 5111/OSHB dated 29.4.2013. He was subsequently relieved from service on 31.7.2013, in compliance with Letter No. 9381/OSHB (Estt.) dated 30.7.2013, issued by the Secretary, pursuant to the orders of the Chairman, OSHB. (iii) After 2‰ months’ post-retirement/ the OSHB disbursed the petitioner’s Employee Provident Fund (EPF) dues via Office Memo No. 11763 dated 17.10.2013. However, his Gratuity and Leave Salary remain unpaid. (iv) Upon inquiry with the OSHB, the petitioner was informed that his Gratuity and Leave Salary had been withheld due to the pendency of disciplinary proceedings initiated against him in 2003, based on the Special Audit Report dated 1.7.2002 about gross irregularities in three Joint venture projects erected by OSHB namely ChandramaAppartment at Malisahi, Bhubaneswar, Banaja Apartment at Unit-VI, Bhubaneswar, and Satyasai Enclave at Aiginia, Bhubaneswar. (v) The said proceedings were initiated by the Principal Secretary of the Housing & Urban Development Department via Office Memorandum No. 16/HUD dated 1.1.2003, against the petitioner and three others,
Legal Reasoning
reason that it is ex facie illegal to continue the disciplinary proceedings for nearly two decades. This should be treated like a speedy trial which is a fundamental right of the citizen. III. SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE OPPOSITE PARTIES: 4. (i) In reply, learned counsel for the Opposite Party Nos.3 and 4earnestly made the following submissions in support of his contentions: TheDirector of Municipal Administration and Ex-Officio Additional Secretary of the Housing and Urban Development (H&UD) Department Page 4 of 17 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 03-Oct-2024 17:51:26 was designated as the Inquiry Officer to investigate the charges leveled against the petitioner in this matter. The Secretary of the OSHB was appointed as the Presenting Officer, pursuant to the order from the H&UD Department in July 2004, as referenced in Annexure-5 of this writ petition. Subsequently, the Government of the H&UD Department, via Letter No. 10642/H&UD dated 05.04.2012, communicated the initiation of disciplinary proceedings against another officer, Sri Rabi Narayan Pattanaik, former Chief Accounts Officer (CAO) of OSHB, as he was an employee of OSHB. Following this, the Government of the H&UD Department, through Letter No. 17257/HUD dated 08.07.2015, instructed the OSHB to conclude the proceedings against Sri R. N. Pattanaik and Sri B.K. Martha in accordance with the OSHB Act and Rules, with the Chairman of OSHB acting as the appointing and disciplinary authority. (ii) The disciplinary proceedings initiated against the petitioner would be concluded by the OSHB as per the OSHB Rules of 1970, with notification to the Government in the H&UD Department. After several correspondences with the Government in the H&UD Department, the OSHB Authority issued Order No. 7078 dated 26.08.2015, appointing the Chief Engineer of OSHB as the Inquiry Officer to investigate the proceedings against the petitioner, Sri Basanta Kumar Martha, former Law Officer of OSHB. The Inquiry Officer has been directed to complete the inquiry and submit a report promptly. A copy of the order dated 26.08.2015 was communicated to the petitioner for his information and necessary action. The inquiry proceedings are currently ongoing, with Page 5 of 17 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 03-Oct-2024 17:51:26 two phases of inquiry having been conducted by the then Chief Engineer, who served as the Inquiry Officer. The petitioner has participated in the inquiry and submitted his defense statement. The inquiry concerning another individual, Dr. R.N. Pattanaik, is also in progress, and he has requested time to submit his defense statement, as noted in the report from the relevant wing. (iii) In light of the ongoing departmental proceedings initiated by the Government and the H&UD Department, as well as the ongoing inquiry/ the petitioner’s retirement benefits/ including gratuity/ have been understandably withheld. However/ the petitioner’s provident fund dues have been fully disbursed. It is important to note that the petitioner’s legitimate dues/ as per the prescribed rules of the Orissa Service Code and the Board’s regulations, may be disbursed following the proper procedures, but such disbursement is contingent upon the outcome of the pending departmental proceedings against the petitioner, which he is aware of, as these proceedings were initiated prior to his retirement. The withheld retirement benefits for the petitioner amount to approximately (i) Gratuity Rs. 5,64,383/- and (ii) Unutilized Leave Salary Rs. 4,59,459/-. (iv) Based on the findings of the Special Audit Report regarding the irregularities committed by the petitioner and several other officers of OSHB in their official capacities concerning three joint venture projects, which resulted in significant financial losses to OSHB, the Government in the H&UD Department has initiated departmental proceedings, and the inquiry is ongoing. Page 6 of 17 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 03-Oct-2024 17:51:26 (v) Although the Government in the H&UD Department appointed the Director of Municipal Administration as the Inquiry Officer to investigate the matter, no further progress was made in the inquiry. As indicated in the preceding paragraphs, following a series of correspondences, the Chief Engineer of OSHB has now been appointed as the Inquiry Officer to investigate the proceedings against the petitioner and another officer of OSHB. The current Inquiry Officer has taken all necessary steps to adhere to the proper inquiry procedures, providing opportunities for defense and hearings to the involved officers, including the petitioner, to ensure the expeditious resolution of the proceedings.. IV. COURT’S REASONING AND ANALYSIS: 5. 6. 7. I have heard the representations of the counsels appearing for the respective parties at length and perused the material placed on record. First of all, it is trite in law that the power of judicial review exercised by a Court or a Tribunal against the orders of a departmental enquiry committee is only limited to ensuring that the individual receives fair treatment and not to ensure that the conclusion which the authority reaches is necessarily correct in the eye of the Court. Similar case has been confronted by the Apex Court in B.C. Chaturvedi vs. Union of India,1 wherein the Supreme Court also held that judicial review is not an appeal from a decision but a review of the manner in which the decision is made. Power of judicial review is meant to ensure 1(1995) 6 SCC 749 Page 7 of 17 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 03-Oct-2024 17:51:26 that the individual receives fair treatment and not to ensure that the conclusion which the authority reaches is necessarily correct in the eye of the Court. The relevant excerpt is produced hereinbelow: “12. Judicial review is not an appeal from a decision but a review of the manner in which the decision is made. Power of judicial review is meant to ensure that the individual receives fair treatment and not to ensure that the conclusion which the authority reaches is necessarily correct in the eye of the court. When an inquiry is conducted on charges of misconduct by a public servant, the Court/Tribunal is concerned to determine whether the inquiry was held by a competent officer or whether the inquiry was held by a competent officer or whether rules of natural justice are complied with. Whether the findings or conclusions are based on some evidence, the authority entrusted with the power to hold inquiry has jurisdiction, power and authority to reach a finding of fact or conclusion. But that finding must be based on some evidence. Neither the technical rules of Evidence Act nor of proof of fact or evidence as defined therein, apply to disciplinary proceeding. When the authority accepts that evidence and conclusion receives support therefrom, the disciplinary authority is entitled to hold that the delinquent officer is guilty of the charge. The Court/Tribunal in its power of judicial review does not act as appellate authority to re- appreciate the evidence and to arrive at its own independent findings on the evidence. The Court/Tribunal may interfere where the authority held the proceedings against the delinquent officer in a manner inconsistent with the rules of natural justice or in violation of statutory rules prescribing the mode of inquiry or where the conclusion or finding reached by the disciplinary authority is based on no evidence. If the conclusion or finding be such as no reasonable person would have ever reached, the Court/Tribunal may interfere with the conclusion or the finding, and mould the relief so as to make it appropriate to the facts of each case. Page 8 of 17 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 03-Oct-2024 17:51:26 13. The disciplinary authority is the sole judge of facts. Where appeal is presented, the appellate authority has coextensive power to reappreciate the evidence or the nature of punishment. In a disciplinary inquiry, the strict proof of legal evidence and findings on that evidence are not relevant. Adequacy of evidence or reliability of evidence cannot be permitted to be canvassed before the Court/Tribunal. In Union of India v. H.C. Goel, this Court held at p. 728 that if the conclusion, upon consideration of the evidence reached by the disciplinary authority, is perverse or suffers from patent error on the face of the record or based on no evidence at all, a writ of certiorari could be issued. xxxxxxxxx 18. A review of the above legal position would establish that the disciplinary authority, and on appeal the appellate authority, being fact-finding authorities have exclusive power to consider the evidence with a view to maintain discipline. They are invested with the discretion to impose appropriate punishment keeping in view the magnitude or gravity of the misconduct. The High Court/Tribunal, while exercising the power of judicial review, cannot normally substitute its own conclusion on penalty and impose some other penalty. If the punishment imposed by the disciplinary authority or the appellate authority shocks the conscience of the High Court/Tribunal, it would appropriately mould the the penalty disciplinary/appellate authority imposed, or to shorten the litigation, it may itself, in exceptional and rare cases, impose appropriate punishment with cogent reasons in support thereof.” either to reconsider (Emphasis supplied) directing relief, the 8. When an inquiry is conducted on the charges of misconduct by an employee of the state, the Court or Tribunal would be concerned only to the extent of determining whether the inquiry was held by a competent officer or whether the rules of natural justice and statutory rules were complied with. Page 9 of 17 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 03-Oct-2024 17:51:26 9. Further, in Om Kumar & Others vs. Union of India,2 the Supreme Court after considering the Wednesbury Principles and the doctrine of proportionality held that the question of quantum of punishment in disciplinary matters is primarily for the disciplinary authority, and the jurisdiction of the High Courts under Article 226 of the Constitution or of the Administrative Tribunals is limited and is confined to the applicability of one or the other of the well-known principles known as “Wednesbury Principles” namely whether the order was contrary to law, or whether relevant factors were not considered, or whether irrelevant factors were considered or whether thedecision was one which no reasonable person could have taken. The Apex held as following: “In this context, we shall only refer to these cases. In Ranjit Thakur v. Union of India, [1987] 4 SCC 611, this Court referred to ’proportionality’ in the quantum of punishment but the Court observed that the punishment was ’shockingly’ disproportionate to the misconduct proved. In B.C. Chaturvedi v. Union of India, [1995] 6 SCC 749, this Court stated that the court will not interfere unless the punishment awards was one which shocked the conscience of the Court. Even then, the Court would remit the matter back to the authority and would not normally substitute one punishment for the other. However, in rare situations, the Court could award an alternative penalty. It was also so stated in Ganayutham. Thus, from the above principles and decided cases, it must be held that where an administrative decision relating to punishment in disciplinary cases is questioned as ’arbitrary’ under Article 14, the Court is confined to Wednesbury principles as a secondary 2(2001) 2 SCC 386 Page 10 of 17 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 03-Oct-2024 17:51:26 reviewing authority. The court will not apply proportionality as a primary reviewing Court because no issue of fundamental freedoms nor of discrimination under Article 14 applies in such a context. The Court while reviewing punishment and if it is satisfied that Wednesbury principles are violated, it has normally to remit the matter to the administrator for a fresh decision as to the quantum of punishment. Only in rare cases where there has been long delay in the time taken by the disciplinary proceedings and in the time taken in the Courts, and such extreme or rare cases can the Court substitute its own view as to the quantum of punishment.”(Emphasis supplied) 10. Now, with the above principles in mind, this Court shall consider the arguments of the counsel for the petitioners, one by one, against the arguments of the counsel for the Opp. Parties. 11. This Court finds the aforementioned arguments unacceptable, as the extraordinary delay in concluding the disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner is indefensible under any circumstances. 12. This Court is astonished by the department’s inaction, having allowed the proceedings to remain unresolved for nearly 20 years without any advancement, especially considering the fact that there has been no legal barrier or hindrance to conducting the departmental inquiry against the petitioner, particularly after the Vigilance Department determined in 2004 that there was no criminal liability. 13. The Supreme Court and High Courts have consistently ruled in various decisions that an excessive delay in the initiation or completion of disciplinary proceedings can itself result in significant prejudice to the rights of government employees, warranting intervention in Page 11 of 17 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 03-Oct-2024 17:51:26 disciplinary proceedings on that basis alone. In the present case, to assert that there has been an excessive delay in completing the departmental action is indeed a gross understatement. 14. In yet another case, in the State of Madhya Pradesh v. Bani Singh,3 the officer in question challenged the initiation of departmental inquiry proceedings and the issuance of a charge sheet and the departmental inquiry on the grounds of excessive delay, exceeding 12 years, in initiating the proceedings related to the incidents from 1975-76. An appeal was subsequently lodged in this Court, contending that the Tribunal erred in quashing the proceedings solely based on the grounds of delay and laches, and that the inquiry should have been permitted to proceed to assess the matter on its merits. This Court dismissed the learned counsel’s arguments. In dismissing the appeal, the Supreme Court made the following observations: “The irregularities which were the subject-matter of the enquiry are said to have taken place between the years 1975-77. It is not the case of the department that they were not aware of the said irregularities, if any, and came to know it only in 1987. According to them even in April 1977 there was doubt about the involvement of the officer in the said irregularities and the investigations were going on since then. If that is so, it is unreasonable to think that they would have taken more than 12 years to initiate the disciplinary proceedings as stated by the Tribunal. There is no satisfactory explanation for the inordinate delay in issuing the charge memo and we are also of the view that it will be unfair to permit the departmental enquiry to be proceeded with at this stage. In any case there are no grounds to 31990 Supp SCC 738 Page 12 of 17 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 03-Oct-2024 17:51:26
Arguments
namely S.N. Sethy (Secretary, OSHB), FACAO, and Sri R.N. Pattanaik, Page 2 of 17 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 03-Oct-2024 17:51:26 Asst. Engineer SR Das. The petitioner was charge-sheeted in this disciplinary proceeding. (vi) The petitioner submitted his explanation to the charge sheet on 20.02.2004. Despite his retirement on 31.7.2013, the Vigilance Department had submitted its investigation report on 11.02.2004, which did not disclose any criminal liability. Additionally, the Government has since settled the revised agreements for two projects, namely Satyasai Enclave and Banaja Apartment. However, the disciplinary proceeding initiated in 2003 is yet to be concluded, resulting in the withholding of the petitioner’s retirement benefits by OSHB. (vii) Consequently, the petitioner filed a writ petition before this Court being numbered as W.P.(C) No.14883/15. On 26.8.2015, this Court directed the Opposite Parties to expedite and conclude the departmental proceedings against the petitioner. However, this Court’s order has not yet been complied with. (viii) Despite the aforementioned Court’s order, the disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner remain incomplete, and as a result, he has not received his retirement benefits, including Gratuity and Leave Salary till date. The petitioner, a non-pensionable employee of OSHB, is entirely reliant on his retirement benefits for his livelihood. The withholding of his legitimate retirement benefits, including interest, on account of a prolonged and incomplete disciplinary proceeding, which could not be concluded during his service period, is unlawful. Page 3 of 17 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 03-Oct-2024 17:51:26 II. SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER: 3. Learned counsel for the Petitioner earnestly made the following submissions in support of his contentions: (i) Criminal charges were examined in connection with the same allegations set forth in the charge memoranda that are challenged in the writ petition. The Superintendent of Police, Vigilance Department, in the investigation report concerning the matter, concluded that the inquiry did not establish any criminal liability, as per Order dated 11.02.2004. (ii) The petitioner is 69 years old now and the charges have been pending since 2003-04 without any progress at all even after declaration of no criminal liability by the Vigilance Dept. In view of the pendency of the departmental action, the petitioner has been suffering without any retirement benefits. According to him, there cannot be any justifiable reason for such a long delay in not completing the disciplinary action in respect of the impugned charge memoranda (iii) The present proceedings cannot be countenanced in law for the simple
Decision
interfere with the Tribunal’s orders and accordingly we dismiss this appeal.” 15. In State of Andhra Pradesh v. N. Radhakishan,4The respondent was appointed as Assistant Director of Town Planning in 1976. In 1987, the Director General of the Anti-Corruption Bureau, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad, submitted a report to the Secretary of the Government, Housing, Municipal Administration, and Urban Development Department, Andhra Pradesh, regarding irregularities related to deviations and unauthorized constructions in multi-storeyed complexes within the twin cities of Hyderabad and Secunderabad, allegedly in collusion with municipal authorities. Following this report, the State issued two memos, both dated 12.12.1987, concerning the respondent, Radhakishan, who was then serving as the Assistant City Planner. However, as of 31.07.1995, the articles of charges had not yet been served on the respondent. The Tribunal determined that the memo dated 31.07.1995 pertained to incidents that occurred ten years or more prior to the issuance of the memo and noted the complete lack of explanation from the Government regarding this excessive delay in framing charges and conducting the inquiry against the respondent. The Tribunal concluded that there was no justification for the State to pursue an inquiry against the respondent concerning these long-ago incidents at such a late stage. The Supreme Court observed as follows: “19. It is not possible to lay down any predetermined principles applicable to all cases and in all situations where there is delay in 41998) 4 SCC 154 Page 13 of 17 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 03-Oct-2024 17:51:26 concluding the disciplinary proceedings. Whether on that ground the disciplinary proceedings are to be terminated each case has to be examined on the facts and circumstances in that case. The essence of the matter is that the court has to take into consideration all the relevant factors and to balance and weigh them to determine if it is in the interest of clean and honest administration that the disciplinary proceedings should be allowed to terminate after delay particularly when the 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 the delay has vitiated 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 the 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 their course as per relevant rules but then delay defeats justice. Delay causes prejudice to the charged officer unless it can be shown that he is to blame for the delay or when there is proper explanation for the delay in conducting the disciplinary proceedings. Ultimately, the court is to balance these two diverse considerations.” 16. In similar stead, the Supreme Court in State of Punjab and others v. ChamanLalGoyal,5 held as follows: 51995 (2) SCC 570 Page 14 of 17 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 03-Oct-2024 17:51:26 “9.Now remains the question of delay. There is undoubtedly a delay of five and a half years in serving the charges. The question is whether the said delay warranted the quashing of charges in this case. It is trite to say that such disciplinary proceeding must be conducted soon after the irregularities are committed or soon after discovering the irregularities. They cannot be initiated after lapse of considerable time. It would not be fair to the delinquent officer. Such delay also makes the task of proving the charges difficult and is thus not also in the interest of administration. Delayed initiation of proceedings is bound to give room for allegations of bias, mala fides and misuse of power. If the delay is too long and is unexplained, the court may well interfere and quash the charges. But how long a delay is too long always depends upon the facts of the given case. Moreover, if such delay is likely to cause prejudice to the delinquent officer in defending himself, the enquiry has to be interdicted. Wherever such a plea is raised, the court has to weigh the factors appearing for and against the said plea and take a decision on the totality of circumstances. In other words, the court has to indulge in a process of balancing... " 17. Given the circumstances, this Court is of the opinion that permitting the respondent to continue with the departmental proceedings after such a significant passage of time would be highly detrimental to the petitioner. Subjecting a retired man of 69 years to allegations of corruption and questioned integrity could inflict severe mental distress and anguish on the officer involved. It is essential to avoid protracted disciplinary inquiries against government employees, not only to protect their interests but also in the public interest, as well as to maintain confidence among government employees. 18. The counter submitted by the opposing parties is replete with excuses and a pattern of administrative blame-shifting, illustrating how various Page 15 of 17 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 03-Oct-2024 17:51:26 departments have engaged in a game of passing the responsibility, resulting in undue delays and inaction concerning the petitioner’s case. This behavior has led to an unacceptable deferral of justice, as the petitioner has been subjected to prolonged uncertainty due to the lack of serious handling of the proceedings. 19. Had the various departments approached the matter with the necessary diligence and urgency, the petitioner would not have endured the extensive suffering that has arisen from these protracted proceedings. The departmental inquiry has remained unresolved for nearly two decades, during which the petitioner bears no culpability for the inordinate delays or the resultant lapses. Such a prolonged inquiry, absent any fault attributable to the petitioner, raises significant concerns regarding fairness and due process, and highlights the need for immediate remedial action to conclude these proceedings. 20. At this juncture, it is necessary to terminate the inquiry. The petitioner has already endured substantial hardship due to the ongoing disciplinary proceedings. In fact, the mental anguish and suffering experienced by the appellant as a result of these prolonged proceedings would far outweigh any potential punishment. The petitioner should not bear the consequences of procedural errors made by the department in initiating these disciplinary proceedings. V. CONCLUSION: 21. In view of the reasons stated above, this Court has no hesitation to quash the charge memo and the departmental proceeding issued against the Petitioner in toto. Page 16 of 17 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 03-Oct-2024 17:51:26 22. The Petitionerwill be entitled to all the withheld retiral benefits with 10% simple interest from the date of the retirement of the Petitioner. 23. The retiral benefits shall be disbursed within three months from the date of receipt of copy of this judgment/order. 24. Accordingly, this Writ Petition is allowed. (Dr. S.K. Panigrahi) Judge Orissa High Court, Cuttack, Dated the 24th Sept., 2024/ Page 17 of 17