BHABAGRAHI DAS vs STATE OF ODISHA
- Court
- Odisha High Court
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
W.P.(C) No.35254 of 2025
In the matter of an application under Articles 226 and 227
of the Constitution of India.
………………
Bhabagrahi Das …. Petitioner
-versus-
State of Odisha and Others Opposite Parties
….
For Petitioner : Mr. S.N. Das, Advocate
For Opp. Parties : Mr. S.P. Das, ASC
PRESENT:
THE HONBLE JUSTICE BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Date of Hearing:14.05.2026 and Date of Judgment:14.05.2026
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Biraja Prasanna Satapathy, J .
1. Heard Mr. S.N. Das, learned counsel for the
petitioner and Mr. S.P. Das, learned Addl. Standing
Counsel for the State.
2. Petitioner has filed the present Writ Petition
inter alia with the following prayer :-
// 2 //
“That in view of the facts and grounds taken in the
writ petition, this Hon’ble Court may pass appropriate
writ(s)/direction(s) against the Opposite Parties in
terminating the departmental proceeding initiated
against the Petitioner vide P.R. Department Proceeding
No.6006 corresponding to C.D.I. Case No.12/98
pending in the file of Panchayati Raj Department,
Opposite Party No.1 and quash the impugned demand
letter dated 25.09.2025 issued by the Additional
District Magistrate, Kendrapara under Annexure-5,
declaring the said action illegal, arbitrary and violative
of Article 21 of Constitution of India;
And may further be pleased to direct the Opposite
Parties to grant all such consequential service benefits
accrued in favour of the Petitioner prior to his
retirement of service and all such retiral benefits
including but not limited to gratuity, unutilized leave
etc. with penalty of payment of interest at the current
market rate till actual payment, in the interest of
justice..”
3. Considering the relief claimed and the fact that
proceeding initiated in the year 1998, has not yet
been completed, this Court passed the following
orders on 17.12.2025, 04.02.2026, 16.03.2026,
24.03.2026 and 22.04.2026:-
“17.12.2025
01. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid
Arrangement (Virtual/ Physical) Mode.
2. Heard.
3. Let an extra copy of the Writ Petition be served on
the learned Addl. Standing Counsel who is directed
to obtain instruction on the issue.
4. As requested, list this matter in the week
commencing 19.O1.2026.
Page 2 of 16
// 3 //
(Biraja Prasanna SataPathy)
Judge
02. I.A. No.21966 of 2025
1. Heard.
2. In the interim, it is directed that there shall be no
recovery basing on the impugned communication
dt.25.09.2025 so issued under Annexure-5 by Opp.
Party No.3.
(Biraja Prasanna Satapathy)
Judge
04.02.2026
03. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Mode.
2. Heard learned counsel appearing for the parties.
3. As requested by the learned Addl. Standing
Counsel, list this matter in the week commencing
9th March,2026.
4. Interim order passed earlier shall continue till
the next date.
(Biraja Prasanna Satapathy)
Judge
16.03.2026
04. 01. This matter is taken up through hybrid mode.
rd
2. As requested, list this matter on 23
March,2026.
3. Learned Addl. Standing Counsel is directed to
obtain instruction with regard to the status of the
proceeding so initiated in the year 1998, even
though as found from the instruction after receipt of
st
the enquiry report, 1 show-cause was issued vide
notice dtd.26.02.2002.
4. Interim order passed earlier shall continue till the
next date.
(Biraja Prasanna Satapathy)
Judge
24.03.2026
05. 1. This matter is taken up through hybrid mode.
2. Heard learned counsel appearing for the Parties.
3. Pursuant to order dtd.16.03.2026, learned Addl.
Standing Counsel produced copy of letter
d1d.20.03.2026 so issued by the Collector &
District Magistrate, Kendrapara in Court. The same
be kept in record.
Page 3 of 16
// 4 //
4. Basing on the instruction, it is contended that the
office of Opp. Party No. 2 has no positive instruction
with regard to status of the proceeding so initiated
against the Petitioner way back in the year 1998.
However, it is contended that necessary instruction
will be obtained before the next date with regard to
status of the said proceeding.
5. In addition to the same, learned Addl. Standing
Counsel contended that Petitioner though was made
as an accused in G.R. case No. 776 of 1996 in the
court of learned SDJM, Kendrapara, but he has no
instruction with regard to status of the said
proceeding.
6. To the submission made by the learned Addl.
Standing Counsel with regard to involvement of the
Petitioner in the criminal case, learned counsel for
the Petitioner contended that vide order
dtd.17.03.1999 under Annexure-4, the I.O.
submitted the final report observing therein that
there is no sufficient evidence against the present
Petitioner and other accused persons.
7. It is further contended that vide the said order
learned court below though directed the CBI for
further investigation, but no such investigation has
been carried out.
8. Considering the submission made, learned Addl.
Standing Counsel is also directed to obtain
instruction as to whether pursuant to order
dtd.17.03.1999, any investigation was carried out
by the CBI and the result thereof.
9. As requested by the learned Addl. Standing
Counsel, list this matter in the week commencing
l3th April,2026.
10. Interim order passed earlier shall continue till
the next date.
Free copy of the order be provided to Mr. S.P.
Das, learned Addl. Standing Counsel for
compliance.
(Biraja Prasanna Satapathy)
Judge
22.04.2026
06. l. This matter is taken up through hybrid mode.
2. Heard learned counsel for the Parties.
3. As requested, list this matter in the week
commencing 11.05.2026.
4 Interim order passed earlier shall continue till the
next date.”
Page 4 of 16
// 5 //
(Biraja Prasanna Satapathy)
Judge
4. On the face of the orders passed by this Court
on 17.12.2025, 04.02.2026, 16.03.2026, 24.03.2026
and 22.04.2026, no instruction has yet been
provided by the Department. However, Mr. Das,
learned Additional Standing Counsel contended that
since criminal record is not yet traceable, the
Authorities are not in a position to provide the
instruction.
5. It is contended that while petitioner in service,
the proceeding in question was initiated in C.D.I.
Case No.12 of 1998 under Annexure-1 because of
the implication of the petitioner in G.R. Case No.176
of 1996 in the file of learned S.D.J.M., Kendrapara.
Petitioner submitted the reply to the charges on
22.05.2001 under Annexure-2 and the Disciplinary
Authority appointed by the Enquiring Officer, who
submitted the enquiry report on 12.12.2001 under
Annexure-3.
Page 5 of 16
// 6 //
5.1. It is also contended that in the criminal
proceeding, though learned S.D.J.M., Kendrapara
vide order dated 17.03.1999 under Annexure-4, in
G.R. Case No.776 of 1996 directed for further
investigation by the C.B.I., but no such initiation
was taken to cause enquiry through C.B.I. as yet.
5.2. It is further contended that because of
pendency of the proceeding, the petitioner though
has retired since 31.08.1995, but he is yet to get his
retiral benefits save and except provisional pension.
5.3. It is also contended that the petitioner is now
aged about 90 years and because of pendency of the
proceeding so initiated in the year 1998 with
submission of the enquiry report on 12.12.2001, the
petitioner is not getting his retiral benefits. It is
further contended that since petitioner has no
latches with regard to the pendency of the
disciplinary proceeding, in view of the decisions of
the Hon’ble apex Court in P.V. Mahadevan Vrs.
M.D. Tamil Nadu Housing Board, Prem Nath Bali
Page 6 of 16
// 7 //
Vrs. Registrar, High Court of Delhi & another
(Civil Appeal No.958 of 2010), State of Andhra
Pradesh Vrs. N. Radhakishan reported in AIR
1998 SC 1833 and the decisions of this Cout in Sri
Surath Chanda Mallick Vrs. State of Odisha &
another (Paragraph-11), Pramod Kumar Sahu Vrs.
State of Odisha & others (W.P.C.(OAS) No.68 of
2017, the proceeding is required to be quashed.
5 P.V.
.4. Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of
Mahadevan in para-19 has held as follows:-
“19. 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."”
5.5 . Reliance was also placed to another decision
Prem
of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of
Nath Bali
(Civil Appeal No.958 of 2010). Hon’ble
Apex Court in Para-33 has held as follows:-
Page 7 of 16
// 8 //
“33. Keeping these factors in mind, we are of the
considered opinion that every employer (whether State or
private) must make sincere endeavor to conclude the
departmental inquiry proceedings once initiated against
the delinquent employee within a reasonable time by
giving priority to such proceedings and as far as possible it
should be concluded within six months as an outer limit.
Where it is not possible for the employer to conclude due to
certain unavoidable causes arising in the proceedings
within the time frame then efforts should be made to
conclude within reasonably extended period depending
upon the cause and the nature of inquiry but not more than
a year.”
5.6 . Reliance was placed to a decision of this Court
in the case of Sri Surath Chandra Mallick. This
Court in Para-11 has held as follows:-
“11. Mr. Sameer Kumar Das, learned counsel for the
petitioner has relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in State of Madhya Pradesh vs. Bani
Singh and another, reported in AIR 1990 SC 1308
wherein, it has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court
that the long pending departmental proceeding is liable
to be quashed because of the unexplained delay and
latches on the part of the department to conclude the
same. Learned counsel for the petitioner also relied
upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in M.
Bijlani vs. Union of India reported in 2006 (5) SCC 88 to
buttress his argument regarding termination of long
pending departmental proceeding.”
5.7 . Reliance was placed to a 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
( Pramod Kumar Sahu Vs. State of Odisha and
Page 8 of 16
// 9 //
Others ) and W.P.C(OAC) No.3712 of 2016 disposed
of on 6.09.2022 ( Gangadhar Routray Vs. State of
Odisha and Others ).
5.8 N. Radhakishan
. Hon’ble Court in the case of
in Para-19 & 20 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
Page 9 of 16
// 10 //
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 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”.
5.9 . 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
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
Page 10 of 16
// 11 //
concluding the same. This Court finds that for
the alleged irregularity which took place during
the year 1989-90, the proceeding was initiated
after 11 years i.e. on 19.09.2001 under
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 with the enquiry by
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.
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.
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
Page 11 of 16
// 12 //
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.”
5.10. 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) No. 3712 of 2016, is
inclined to quash the proceeding initiated against 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 retiral benefits of the
Petitioner is disbursed in his favour within a further
period of three (3) months.”
5.11. It is further contended that following the
aforesaid decisions of the Hon’ble apex Court, this
Page 12 of 16
// 13 //
Court in its judgment dated 10.11.2025 in W.P.(C)
No.26014 of 2025 also quashed the disciplinary
proceeding initiated in the year 2002. This Court in
Paragraphs-6.2 & 6.3 of the said judgment has made
as follows :-
“6.2. But it is found that on the face of such
appointment of the Enquiry Officer vide order dated
15.05.2024 , the proceeding is yet to commence. Since
the proceeding is of the year 2002 and the enquiry has
not yet commenced, it is the view of this Court that
there is inordinate delay in disposing the proceeding
and petitioner has got no role on the same. Because of
the pendency of the proceeding for the last 23 years,
petitioner has been put to unnecessary harassment.
6.3. Placing reliance on the decisions as cited (supra)
and since it is found that no fault lies with the petitioner
for such long pendency of the proceeding, this Court is
inclined to quash the proceeding initiated against the
petitioner so initiated vide Memorandum dated
31.10.2002 under Annexure-1. While quashing the
proceeding, this Court allows the Writ Petition.”
5.12. Making all the submissions, learned
counsel appearing for the petitioner contended that
the proceeding in C.D.I. Case No.12 of 1998 be
quashed and Opposite Party No.2 be directed to
release all the retiral benefits as due and admissible
in favour of the petitioner.
6. Learned Additional Standing Counsel on the
other hand contended that taking into account the
Page 13 of 16
// 14 //
nature of charges framed against the petitioner in
the proceeding under Annexure-1, and since the
petitioner in involved with misappropriation of
Government money to the tune of Rs.13,92,266.34
so reflected in Annexure-5, the proceeding be allowed
to continue and it will be completed within a
reasonable time.
7. Having heard the submissions made, this Court
finds that the petitioner while in service, the
proceeding in question was initiated in C.D.I. Case
No.12 of 1998 under Annexure-1. The petitioner
though filed his reply on 22.05.2001 under
Annexure-2 and enquiry report was submitted on
12.12.2001 under Annexure-3, but the fact, which is
not disputed, the proceeding is yet to be disposed of
on the face of retirement of the petitioner on
31.08.1995. It is also found that in the criminal
proceeding vide order dated 17.03.1999, learned
S.D.J.M., Kendrapara in G.R. Case No.776 of 1996
though directed the C.B.I. to cause further
Page 14 of 16
// 15 //
investigation but no such investigation has yet been
undertaken.
8. In view of the aforesaid fact and since no fault
lies with the petitioner with regard to pendency of
the proceeding, this Court placing reliance on the
decisions as cited (supra) is inclined to quash the
proceeding so initiated against the petitioner in
C.D.I. Case No.12 of 1998 under Annexure-1. While
quashing the said proceeding, this Court directs
Opposite Party No.2 to release all the retiral benefits
as due and admissible in favour of the petitioner
within three months from the date of receipt of this
order. If all the benefits are not released within the
aforesaid period of three months, then petitioner will
be entitled to get interest @ 6% all through on all
such retiral benefits.
Consequentially, the impugned demand notice
dated 25.09.2025 under Annexure-5 also stands
quashed.
Page 15 of 16
// 16 //
9. The Writ Petition accordingly stands disposed
of.
(Biraja Prasanna Satapathy)
Judge
Orissa High Court, Cuttack
th
Dated the 14 May, 2026/Manoj
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: MANOJ ROUT K
Reason: Authentication
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT
Date: 15-May-2026 19:54:23
Page 16 of 16