The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C) Nos.21871 & 21578 of 2025 Pradip Kumar Mishra @ Pradeep Kumar Mishra …. Petitioner Mr. A.K. Mishra, Advocate State of Odisha & Others -versus- …. Opposite Parties Mr. A. Tripathy, AGA CORAM: JUSTICE BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY Order No. ORDER 17.09.2025 04. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual/Physical) Mode.
Legal Reasoning
2. Heard learned counsel appearing for the Parties. 3. Since the issue involved in both the cases is
Decision
identical, both the Writ Petitions are heard analogously and disposed of by the present common order. 4. While W.P.(C) No.21871 of 2025 has been filed seeking quashing of the proceeding on the ground of delay so initiated vide Memorandum dtd.22.06.2005, W.P.(C) No.21578 of 2025 has been filed seeking quashing of the proceeding initiated vide Memorandum dtd.03.10.2004. // 2 // 5. It is the case of the Petitioner that both the proceedings when were disposed of with imposition of punishment vide order dtd.01.06.2011 under Annexure-3 in both the Writ Petitions, Petitioner challenged the same after dismissal of the appeal, in O.A. Nos.972 & 973 of 2012. 5.1. It is contended that vide order dtd.24.03.2017 under Annexure-5, the Tribunal vide a common order while quashing the impugned order of punishment remitted the matters for fresh disposal. 5.2. It is contended that on such remand of the matter, the proceedings in question were never disposed of as directed and by the time such an order was passed by the Tribunal, Petitioner had also retired from his service on attaining the age of superannuation on 31.08.2016. 5.3. It is also contended that because of non-disposal of the proceeding on remand of the matter, Petitioner even though has retired since 31.08.2016 but he is not getting his pensionary benefits save and except the pension as due and admissible. 5.4. It is accordingly contended that since after remand of the matter, the proceedings are yet to be disposed of by Opposite Party No.1, in view of the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case State of Andhra Pradesh vs. N. Radhakishan, reported in Page 2 of 7 // 3 // AIR 1998 SC-1833 so followed by this Court in its order dtd.29.08.2023 in W.P.(C) No.24651 of 2023, the proceedings in question are required to be quashed. Hon’ble Apex Court in Para-19 & 20 in the decision in the case of N. Radhakishan has held as follows:- “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 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 relevant factors and to balance and weight 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 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 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 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 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. Page 3 of 7 // 4 // the for delay in concluding 20. In the present case we find that without any reference to records merely on the report of the Director General, Anticorruption 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 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 that It respondent at any stage tried to obstruct or delay the 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 to promote the 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.” is nobody’s case the bye-laws. 5.5. Following the decision in the case of N.Radhakishan this Court in Para-8 of the order has held as follows:- “8. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after going through the materials available on record, it is found that on initiation of the proceeding vide order under Annexure-1 dated 06.07.2009, the petitioner immediately file her written statement of defence on 29.08.2009. As revealed from the instruction, no Page 4 of 7 // 5 // further progress has been made even to the proceeding after submissions of Enquiry Report on 21.10.2021. In view of such inordinate delay in disposal of the proceeding placing reliance on the decisions as cited supra, this Court is inclined to quash the proceeding so initiated against the petitioner on 06.07.2009 under Annexure-1. While quashing the proceeding, this Court allows the Writ Petition.” 6. Learned Addl. Government Advocate for the State on the other hand basing on the instruction contended that in both the proceedings Petitioner was imposed with the punishment and the same was also confirmed by the appellate authority. But the Tribunal while quashing the order of punishment vide order dtd.24.03.2017 in O.A. Nos.972 and 973 of 2012, remitted the matter for fresh disposal with certain observations and directions. 6.1. It is contended that seeking review of the order so passed by the Tribunal on 24.03.2017, the present Petitioner filed Review Petition No.16 of 2017. However, the said Review Petition was only dismissed by this Court vide order dtd.27.06.2024, because of the non-compliance of the peremptory order. 6.2. It is accordingly contended that since after remand of the matter by the Tribunal, Petitioner filed a Review Petition seeking review of the order in Review Petition No.16 of 2017, the authorities thought it Page 5 of 7 // 6 // proper not to dispose of the proceedings till disposal of the review petition. Since the Review Petition was only dismissed because of non-compliance of the peremptory order dtd.27.06.2024, no fault lies with the Opposite Party No.1 in not disposing the proceedings after remand of the matter by the Tribunal. 6.3. It is however contended that the authorities are very much ready and willing to dispose of the proceeding in terms of the order dtd.24.03.2017 so passed by the Tribunal. 7. Having heard learned counsel appearing for the Parties and considering the submissions made, this Court finds that both the proceedings were initiated against the Petitioner vide Memorandums dtd. 22.06.2005 and 03.10.2004 respectively. Petitioner was imposed with the punishment vide order dtd.01.06.2011 and the same was also confirmed in appeal. Challenging the order of punishment, Petitioner approached the Tribunal by filing O.A. Nos.972 & 973 of 2012. 7.1. As found the Tribunal while quashing the orders of punishment vide order dtd.24.03.2017, remanded the matter for fresh disposal with certain observations and directions. However, it is found that after such remand of the matter and because of the pendency of the review petition filed by the Petitioner seeking review Page 6 of 7 // 7 // of the order dtd.24.03.2017, in Review Petition No.16 of 2017, the authorities did not proceed with the matter as directed. As found the review petition was only dismissed because of non-compliance of the peremptory order vide order dtd.27.06.2024. 7.2. In that view of the matter, this Court is of the view that no delay can be attributed on the part of Opposite Party No.1 in not disposing the proceedings after remand for such a pretty long period. Accordingly, this court is not inclined to entertain both the Writ Petitions with the prayer as made. 8. Accordingly, both the Writ Petitions stand dismissed. 9. Photocopy of the order be placed in the connected cases. (Biraja Prasanna Satapathy) Judge Subrat Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: SUBRAT KUMAR BARIK Reason: Authentication Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACK Date: 23-Sep-2025 17:44:08 Page 7 of 7