Pramod Kumar Rath vs State Of Odisha
2025 Latest Caselaw 10854 Ori

Orissa High Court

Pramod Kumar Rath vs State Of Odisha on 9 December, 2025

              IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

                               W.P.(C) No.20238 of 2025

           In the matter of an application under Articles 226 & 227 of
           the Constitution of India, 1950.
                                       ----
           Pramod Kumar Rath                  ....            Petitioner

                                             -versus-

           State of Odisha, represented                   ....       Opposite Parties
           through the Principal Secretary,
           Department of School & Mass
           Education, Government of
           Odisha & Others

                         Advocates Appeared in this case
                    For Petitioner -    Mr.Bidyadhar Mansingh
                                        Advocate

                    For Opp. Parties -             Mr.D.N. Lenka,
                                                   Addl. Govt. Advocate.
                                                 ---
           CORAM
                 MR. JUSTICE DIXIT KRISHNA SHRIPAD
   -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                    Date of Hearing & Judgment : 09.12.2025
   -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PER DIXIT KRISHNA SHRIPAD, J.

The essential grievance of the petitioner is reflected in the

prayer column of the petition, which reads as under:-

"The petitioner most respectfully prays that this Hon'ble Court may graciously be pleased to admit the writ petition and issue Rule Nisi to the Opp. Parties to show cause:-

i. As to why the order of suspension and chare memo under Annexure-1 & 2 against the petitioner shall not be quashed;

ii. As to why OP No.2 shall not be directed to consider the promotion of the petitioner if he is otherwise eligible with retrospective effect; and

iii. As to why order of revocation of enhanced subsistence allowance shall not be quashed...."

2. Petitioner seeks quashment of all disciplinary proceedings

on the ground of enormous delay brooked in the inquiry without

justification. Learned counsel for the petitioner alternatively

submits that regardless of what should happen to the inquiry

proceedings, his client cannot be continued under suspension

eternally in the light of Apex Court decision in Ajay Kumar

Choudhary v. Union of India, AIR 2015 SC 2389.

3. Learned AGA Mr.Lenka appearing for the opposite parties

vehemently opposes the petition contending that the charges are

very grave and multiple delinquents are involved in the matter

and therefore, delay would inevitably happen, which the Court

should leniently view; that delay per se is not a ground for

quashment of the disciplinary proceedings. He further opposes

the other prayer of the petitioner for rescinding his suspension on

the ground that all emoluments are being drawn by him, he

should not worry about the on-going suspension at all. Even

otherwise, according to the learned AGA, no case is made out for

rescinding the suspension.

4. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having

perused the petition papers, this Court is inclined to grant a

limited indulgence in the matter as under and on the following

reasons:-

4.1. Suspension of an employee cannot be continued eternally

vide Ajay Kumar Chaudhary supra. A decision has to be taken to

rescind the same, after the expiry of a spell of six months. The

authorities have to keep in mind that the suspended employee is

paid subsistence allowance for the initial period and full salary is

paid subsequently from the Public Exchequer with no work being

extracted. That is not a happy thing to happen in a Welfare State.

4.2. There is force in the submission of learned AGA appearing

for the opposite parties that liberty should be reserved to his

client to post the petitioner anywhere in the State after rescinding

the suspension so that the public money would not be put to the

risk of pilferage. It hardly needs to be stated that our Constitution

recognizes employer's prerogative to extract the work from the

civil servants by posting them in any place of its choice subject to

all just exceptions.

4.3. Learned AGA is also justified in contending that inquiry of

the kind, which involves alleged misappropriation of more than a

crore rupees with the involvement of several delinquents, delay is

bound to be brooked. Delay per se, Apex Court said several times,

is no ground for quashment of the inquiry proceedings. No

exceptional case is made out for departing from the bit and track

of law.

In the above circumstances, this petition is allowed in part.

Petitioner's suspension shall be rescinded within a period of three

(3) weeks and he would be posted anywhere in the State keeping

in view all relevant factors. The subject inquiry shall be

accomplished within an outer limit of six (6) months and report

compliance to the Registrar General of this Court. All contentions

in the inquiry are kept open.

Now, no costs.

Web copy of judgment to be acted upon by all concerned.

(Dixit Krishna Shripad) Judge Orissa High Court, Cuttack The 9th Day of December,2025/Basu

Designation: ADDL. DY. REGISTRAR-CUM-ADDL.

Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA : CUTTACK Date: 11-Dec-2025 13:55:23