Orissa High Court
Pradeep Kumar Bhoi vs The State Of Odisha And ..... Opposite ... on 18 February, 2025
Author: Aditya Kumar Mohapatra
Bench: Aditya Kumar Mohapatra
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
WP(C) No.3662 of 2025
Pradeep Kumar Bhoi ..... Petitioner
Represented By Adv. -
Akshaya Kumar Sahoo
-versus-
The State Of Odisha and ..... Opposite Parties
others
Mr. S.K. Parhi, ASC
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADITYA KUMAR
MOHAPATRA
ORDER
18.02.2025
Order No.
01. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid mode.
2. Heard learned counsel for the Petitioner as well as learned
counsel for the State-Opposite Parties. Perused the writ application as
well as the documents annexed thereto.
3. The Petitioner has filed the present writ application with the
following prayer:
"In view of the above facts and circumstances,
it is most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble
Court may graciously be pleased to:-
A) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other
appropriate writ directing the respondents to
drop the departmental proceedings initiated
against the petitioner vice Memorandum No.
30247/PR dated 21.12.2013.
B) . Direct the respondents to release all withheld
post-retirement benefits of the petitioner,
including gratuity and pension, without any
further delay.
C) Pass any other order or direction as this
Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in
the interest of justice and equity."
4. The present writ petition has been filed by the Petitioner with a
prayer to drop the departmental proceeding initiated against the
Petitioner vide Memorandum No.30247/PR dated 21.12.2013 and
further for a direction to the Opposite Parties to release all withheld
post-retirement benefits of the Petitioner including gratuity and
pension within a stipulated period of time.
5. Learned counsel for the Petitioner at the outset contended that
while the Petitioner was working as ABDO at Komna Block, a
disciplinary proceeding was initiated against him vide Memorandum
No.30247/PR dated 21.12.2013. He further contended that the said
proceeding was initiated against the Petitioner by the co-delinquent
officer. The Petitioner received a copy of the memorandum of
charges on 03.01.2024 and accordingly submitted his written
statement of defense on 28.02.2014. He further contended that
pursuant to order dated 17.07.2014, the inquiry officer as well as the
marking officer were appointed. He further submitted that in the
meantime the Petitioner, on attaining the age of superannuation, has
retired from service w.e.f. 31.03.2020. However, the proceeding
which was initiated against the Petitioner in the year 2013 is still
pending. Being aggrieved by the pendency of the aforesaid
proceeding and the consequential action of non-sanctioning and non-
disbursal of the post-retiral benefits including the pensionary
benefits, the Petitioner has approached this Court by filing the
present writ petition.
6. Learned counsel for the Petitioner at the outset contended that
although more than a decade has lapsed, however, the disciplinary
proceeding has not been concluded. He further submitted that the
Petitioner and the other family members are suffering financial
difficulties as they have not been paid the retiral dues as well as the
pensionary benefits as is due and admissible to the Petitioner on the
ground of pendency of the aforesaid disciplinary proceeding. Further,
referring to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, learned
counsel for the Petitioner submitted that the law is well settled that
the disciplinary proceeding is required to be conducted and
concluded in a time bound manner and the same is to be concluded
without any kind of harassment to the government employees either
during their service career or after their retirement. On such ground,
learned counsel for the Petitioner submitted that the disciplinary
proceeding initiated against the Petitioner vide memorandum dated
21.12.2013 is liable to be quashed in the larger interests of justice.
7. Learned counsel for the State on the other hand contended that
while the proceeding was continuing, the Petitioner has retired from
service on attaining the age of superannuation. He further contended
that although he does not have any specific instruction in the matter,
however, in the event this Court grants another opportunity, the
Opposite Parties shall make every endeavor to conclude the
proceeding as expeditiously as possible. On such ground, learned
counsel for the State submitted that the writ petition is devoid of
merit and accordingly the same should be dismissed.
8. Having heard the learned counsels appearing for the respective
parties, on a careful examination of the background facts, further
keeping in view the limited nature of the grievance of the Petitioner
involved in the present writ petition, this Court deems it proper to
dispose of the writ petition at the stage of admission by directing the
Opposite Party No.1 to ensure that the disciplinary proceeding
pending against the present Petitioner vide memorandum dated
21.12.2013 is concluded as expeditiously as possible, preferably
within a period of three months. The Petitioner is directed to
cooperate with the enquiring officer as well as the disciplinary
authority for an early conclusion of the proceeding. Further, it is
directed that in the event, the proceeding is not concluded within the
stipulated time period, then it will be presumed that the proceeding
has terminated in favour of the Petitioner. Accordingly, the Opposite
Parties shall do the needful to ensure that the post-retiral benefit
including pensionary benefits and gratuity is sanctioned and
calculated and be paid to the Petitioner within a period of six weeks
from the date of the expiry of the aforesaid period of three months.
9. With the aforesaid observations/directions, the writ application
stands disposed of.
Issue urgent certified copy of this order as per Rules.
( Aditya Kumar Mohapatra )
Judge
S.K. Rout
Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack
