SANJAY KUMAR PANDA vs STATE OF ODISHA
- Court
- Odisha High Court
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
W.P.(C) No. 7927 of 2025
(CNR No.ODHC010190722025)
In the matter of an application under Articles 226 & 227 of the
Constitution of India.
………………
Sanjay Kumar Panda …. Petitioner
-versus-
State of Odisha & Ors. Opp. Parties
….
:
For Petitioner Mr. S.K. Dash, Sr. Adv.
Along with
Mr. S. Priyadarsan, Adv.
For Opp. Parties : Mr. S.P. Das, ASC
PRESENT:
THE HON ’ BLE JUSTICE BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Date of Hearing:13.10.2026 & Date of Judgment: 13.10.2026
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Biraja Prasanna Satapathy, J .
1. This matter is taken up through hybrid mode.
2. Heard learned counsel for the Parties. Additional affidavit filed in
Court be kept in record.
// 2 //
3. The present Writ Petition has been filed inter alia with the following
prayer:-
“It is therefore prayed by the petitioner that this Hon'ble Court
may graciously be pleased to admit the Writ Petition and issue a
RULE NISI, calling upon the opposite parties, to show cause as
to why the departmental proceeding initiated under Annexure:2
will not be quashed and on their failure to show cause or
showing insufficient cause, to make the said RULE absolute and
quash the departmental proceeding initiated under Annexure:2
and consequentially may be pleased to direct the opposite party
No. 2 to release the final pension, gratuity and unutilized leave
salary, along with interest @ 18% per annum from the period
when those would have become due and payable, as a measure
of compensation and/or may further be pleased to pass such
other or further order (s), as it may deem fit and proper, in the
facts and circumstances of the case.
And for this act of kindness, the petitioner, as in duty bound,
shall ever pray.”
4. Learned senior counsel appearing for the Petitioner contended that
proceeding in question was initiated vide memorandum dated 13.05.2010
under Annexure-2 with the following charges:-
“ 1. Gross misconduct for violation of Rue-21 (3)
2. Dereliction of duty for violation of Rule 21(4)
3. Lack of integrity as defined under Rule-3 of OGS Conduct Rule
1959 ”
4.1. It is contended that on receipt of the memorandum, Petitioner filed his
written statement of defence on 22.06.2010 under Annexure-3 and the
Disciplinary Authority vide order dated 23.10.2010 under Annexure-4,
Page 2 of 8
// 3 //
appointed the Enquiry Officer to conduct the enquiry to the Departmental
Proceeding.
4.2. Even though the enquiry officer was appointed vide order under
Annexure-4, but vide order dated 28.05.2012 under Annexure-7, another
Enquiry Officer was appointed to conduct the enquiry. On being so
appointed, the Enquiry Officer vide letter dated 11.02.2013 under
Annexure-8, directed the Petitioner to appear on 21.02.2013 for the purpose
of enquiry.
4.3. Learned senior counsel contended that even though Petitioner at
different point of time made a prayer not to proceed with the Departmental
Proceeding till disposal of the Vigilance Proceeding so initiated in Cuttack
Vigilance PS Case No.07 dated 28.02.2007, but the Enquiry Officer
proceeded with the enquiry with issuance of Anenxure-8.
4.4. It is also contended that even though the Enquiry Officer proceeded
with the enquiry, but no report was submitted and in the meantime
Petitioner also retired from his services on attaining the age of
superannuation on 30.06.2021.
4.5. It is also contended that in the Vigilance Proceeding, the Petitioner
though has been charge-sheeted, but the same is yet to be finalised.
Accordingly, the present Writ Petition was filed with a prayer to quash the
proceeding because of inordinate delay in disposing the same without
having any fault on part of the Petitioner.
4.6. It is contended that since the proceeding initiated on 13.05.2010 is yet
to be disposed of on the face of the retirement of the Petitioner on
Page 3 of 8
// 4 //
30.06.2021, i Civil
n view of the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in
Appeal No.958 of 2010 AIR 2016 SC 101
, reported in . The proceeding is
required to be quashed. Hon’ble Apex Court in Para 33 of the said decision
has held as follows:-
“33. Keeping these factors in m ind, 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 reasonably
extended period depending upon the cause and the nature of
the inquiry but not more than a year.”
4.7. Reliance was also placed to the decision of the Apex Court in the case
of State of Andhra Pradesh Vs. N. Radhakishan , reported in AIR 1998 SC
1833.
Hon’ble Apex Court i n Para 19 & 20 of said decision 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
Page 4 of 8
// 5 //
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.
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 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
Page 5 of 8
// 6 //
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.
”
4.8. It is accordingly contended that since without having any fault on the
part of the Petitioner, the proceeding is yet to be disposed of, the
proceeding is required to be quashed.
5. Even though vide order dated 09.04.2025, this Court directed learned
state counsel to obtain instruction on the issue, but no instruction when was
made available, this Court passed the following order on 02.09.2026:-
“1. This matter is taken up through hybrid mode.
2. Heard learned counsel for the Parties.
3. Considering the relief claimed, learned Addl. Standing
Counsel is directed to obtain instruction with regard to the
status of the proceeding so initiated against the Petitioner
vide memorandum dated 13.05.2010.
4. On the request made by the learned Addl. Standing
nd
Counsel, list this matter on 22
September, 2026.”
Page 6 of 8
// 7 //
6. Pursuant to the aforesaid order passed on 02.09.2026, basing on
instruction, learned ASC contended that the proceeding has not yet been
disposed of and if two (2) weeks’ time will be allowed, the proceeding will
be finalised.
6.1. Today when the matter was taken up, learned ASC produced further
instruction contending inter alia that, in the meantime the enquiry has been
completed and the Enquiry Officer has suggested to drop the proceeding
initiated against the Petitioner, subject to final decision in the Vigilance
Proceeding. Instruction provided by the Collector, Jajpur reads as follows:-
In this context, I am to further intimate that Inquiring Officer
“
in his inquiry report has suggested to drop the D.P. case
initiated against Sri Panda subject to receipt of the final
verdict of vigilance case No.07/2007.”
6.2. It is accordingly contended that since the Enquiry Officer has already
submitted the report, the proceeding will be finalised within a short time.
7. Having heard learned counsel for the Parties and considering the
submission made, this Court finds that the proceeding in question was
initiated against the Petitioner vide memorandum dated 13.05.2010 under
Annexure-2. Petitioner thereafter filed the written statement of defence on
22.06.2010 under Annexure-3 and the Disciplinary Authority- Opp. Party
No.2 appointed the Enquiry Officer vide his order dated 23.10.2010 under
Annexure-4. Subsequently vide another order passed on 28.05.2012 under
Annexure-7, a fresh Enquiry Officer was appointed to cause the enquiry.
7.1. It is also found that even though Petitioner made a request not to
proceed with the departmental proceeding till finalization of the Vigilance
Page 7 of 8
// 8 //
Proceeding, but the Enquiry Officer issued the notice on 11.02.2013 under
Annexure-8, directing the Petitioner to appear for enquiry. Thereafter when
no final decision was taken on the face of the retirement of the Petitioner on
30.06.2021, the present Writ Petition was filed inter alia seeking quashing
of the proceeding, on the ground of inordinate delay in disposal, without
having any fault on the part of the Petitioner.
7.2. It is found that even though the proceeding was initiated on 13.05.2010
and the Enquiry Officer was appointed for the second time on 28.04.2012,
but the Enquiry Officer has only submitted the report on 09.10.2026, with a
suggestion to drop the proceeding.
7.3. Since the proceeding initiated in 2010 has not yet been finalised
without having any fault on the part of the Petitioner and now the Enquiry
Officer has also suggested to drop the proceeding, this Court placing
reliance on the decisions as cited supra, is of the view that the proceeding
since has not been finalised for the last 16 years without having any fault on
the part of the Petitioner, the proceeding is required to be quashed, and
accordingly quash the proceeding so initiated vide Memorandum dated
13.05.2010 under Annexure-2.
8. Accordingly, the Writ Petition stands disposed of.
(BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY)
Judge
Orissa High Court, Cuttack
th
Dated the, 13 October, 2026/Jyoti
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: JYOTIPRAVA BHOL
Reason: Authentication
Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA
Date: 16-Oct-2026 18:13:13
Page 8 of 8