Lingaraj Choudhury vs State Of Odisha & Others .... Opp. ...
2025 Latest Caselaw 7889 Ori

Orissa High Court

Lingaraj Choudhury vs State Of Odisha & Others .... Opp. ... on 4 September, 2025

Author: Biraja Prasanna Satapathy

Bench: Biraja Prasanna Satapathy

  IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

                W.P.(C ) No.20628 of 2025

 In the matter of an application under Article 226 & 227 of
 the Constitution of India, 1950.


                                 ..................


Lingaraj Choudhury                     ....                   Petitioner

                                 -versus-


State of Odisha & Others               ....               Opp. Parties




       For Petitioners              : Mr. R. Achary, Advocate

      For Opp. Parties:           : Mr. M.R. Mohanty,
                                    Addl. Govt. Advocate


PRESENT:


THE HONBLE JUSTICE BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY

 Date of Hearing: 04.09.2025 and Date of Judgment: 04.09.2025
 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 Biraja Prasanna Satapathy, J.

1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid

Arrangement (Virtual/Physical) Mode.

// 2 //

2. Heard learned counsel appearing for the Parties.

3. The present Writ Petition has been filed inter alia with the following prayer:-

"It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that Hon'ble Court graciously be pleased to:

Admit the Writ Petition,

And

Issue an appropriate Writ of like nature and Direction(s) to quash the disciplinary proceedings instituted against the petitioner vide Memorandum No. 8152 dated 30.06.2008 and additional draft charges vide Memorandum No. 2160 dtd. 24.02.2011 by the Opp. Party No.2 on the grounds of inordinate delay in completion of proceedings in the interests of justice in the prevailing circumstances.

And

Pass such other or further orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the present case. Cuttack"

4. It is contended that while in service the proceeding was initiated against the Petitioner vide Memorandum No.8152, dtd.30.06.2008 and additional draft charge was framed vide Memorandum No.2160 dtd.24.02.2011 by Opposite Party No.2 under Annexures-2 and 5.

4.1. It is contended that in both the proceedings, Petitioner though filed his written statement of defence under Annexure-6-Series on dtd.05.08.2011, but no further progress was made to the proceeding till the

// 3 //

Petitioner attained the age of superannuation on 31.05.2024.

4.2. It is contended that after such retirement of the Petitioner on the ground of pendency of the proceeding, Petitioner is not getting his retiral benefits, save and except the provisional pension.

4.3. It is contended that since the proceeding initiated in the year 2008 and additional proceeding initiated in the year in the 2011 has not yet been disposed of, even though Petitioner filed his written statement of defence on 05.08.2011, in view of the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of State of Andhra Pradesh vs. N. Radhakishan, reported in 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 proceeding in question is 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

// 4 //

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 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.

// 5 //

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."

4.4. 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 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."

4.5. It is accordingly contended that since Petitioner has no latches in delaying the disposal of the proceeding, in view of the aforesaid decisions of the Apex Court and of this Court, both the proceedings are liable to be quashed.

5. Mr. M.R. Mohanty, learned Addl. Government Advocate for the State on instruction contended that the proceeding is at the stage of inquiry and if some time will be allowed, the same will be disposed of. It is however not disputed that the proceeding was initiated

// 6 //

on 30.06.2008 and the additional proceeding on 24.02.2011.

6. Having heard learned counsel appearing for the Parties and considering the submissions made, this Court finds that Petitioner while in service, the proceeding was initiated against him on 30.06.2008 under Annexure-2 and an additional proceeding was initiated vide Memorandum dtd.24.02.2011 under Annexure-5. As found Petitioner filed his written statement of defence in both the proceedings on 05.08.2011 under Annexure-6-Series.

6.1. Even though the proceeding was initiated in the year 2008 and 2011, but the same was never disposed of till the Petitioner attained the age of superannuation on 31.05.2024. Placing reliance on the decision in the case of N. Radhakishan as cited (supra) so followed by this Court, it is the view of this Court that without any laches on the part of the Petitioner, the proceeding has not yet been disposed of and thereby causing lot of prejudice to the Petitioner. Even as per the instruction, enquiry has not yet been completed.

6.2. In that view of the matter and since Petitioner has no role in delaying the disposal, this Court is inclined to quash the proceeding dtd. 30.06.2008 and the additional proceeding dtd.24.02.2011 order so initiated

// 7 //

under Annexures-2 & 5 and quash the same accordingly.

7. Accordingly, the Writ Petition stands disposed of.

(Biraja Prasanna Satapathy) Judge

Orissa High Court, Cuttack Dated the 4th September, 2025/Subrat

Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACK