[Cites 0, Cited by 0]
Orissa High Court
Dr. Prasanna Kumar vs State Of Odisha And on 27 January, 2026
Author: Biraja Prasanna Satapathy
Bench: Biraja Prasanna Satapathy
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
W.P.(C) No.31814 of 2025
Dr. Prasanna Kumar .... Petitioner
Patel Mr. P.K. Mishra, Advocate
-versus-
State of Odisha and
Others
.... Opp. Parties
Mr. S.P. Das, ASC
Mr. Sangram Das, SC for
Vigilance
CORAM:
JUSTICE BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY
ORDER
27.01.2026
Order No
02. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid
Arrangement (Virtual/Physical) Mode.
2. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
3. Mr. Sangram Das, learned Standing Counsel for
Vigilance on instruction contended that in the Vigilance
Proceeding petitioner was acquitted vide judgment dated
19.12.2023, so available under Annexure-8. It is however
fairly contended that State has not preferred any appeal
challenging the order of acquittal against the petitioner.
4. The present Writ Petition has been filed inter alia
with the following prayer: -
// 2 //
"In view of the facts and circumstances
stated above, it is prayed, therefore, that this
Hon'ble Court may graciously be pleased to;
(i) Admit and allow the writ petition with cost.
(ii) Direct the 0pp. Parties more particularly the
O.P. No.1 to regularize the period of
suspension from 12.08.2006 to 31.05.2014
i.e. the date of retirement as duty and revise
his pay under ORSP, Rules, 2008 w.e.f.
01.01.2006;
(iii) Further direct the 0pp. Parties to draw and
disburse the arrears of salary in favour of the
petitioner within a stipulated period of time;
(iv) Pass such other order (s), direction (s) as
deem fit and proper to the facts and circumstances
of the case to give complete relief to the petitioner."
5. It is contended that even though petitioner retired
from his services on attaining the age of
superannuation but on the ground of pendency of
Vigilance Proceeding in Sambalpur Vigilance P.S. Case
No.63 dated 05.12.2006, petitioner was not released
with his retiral benefits nor the period of suspension
was regularized.
5.1. It is also contended that because of his involvement
in the Vigilance Case, petitioner while continuing under
suspension, was allowed to retire on attaining the age of
superannuation on 31.05.2014. It is however contended
that since petitioner has now been acquitted in the
Vigilance Proceeding vide judgment dated 19.12.2023
under Annexure-8 and the State Vigilance is not in
favour of challenging the order of acquittal, Opp. Party
No.1 be directed to regularize the period of suspension
and release the retiral benefits as due and admissible.
// 3 //
5.2. It is also contended that no departmental
proceeding is/was pending against the petitioner as on
date of retirement nor any such proceeding has been
initiated in accordance with law after his retirement.
6. Learned Addl. Standing Counsel on the other hand
contended that since State Vigilance has decided not to
challenge the order of acquittal, he may be allowed to
obtain further instruction in the matter with regard to
sanction of the retiral benefits and other service benefits
as due and admissible to the petitioner with
regularisation of the period of suspension.
7. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and
considering the submissions made, it is found that
petitioner after his retirement on 31.05.2014, was not
released with his retiral benefits and service benefits as
due and admissible prior to his retirement, because of
his implication in Sambalpur Vigilance P.S. Case No.63
dated 05.12.2006. It is found that petitioner was
acquitted in the said Vigilance Proceeding vide judgment
dated 19.12.2023 under Annexure-8.
7.1. It is also fairly contended by the learned Standing
Counsel (Vigilance), that State Vigilance has decided not
to file any appeal against the order of acquittal. Since it
is not disputed that no DP is pending against the
petitioner and he has been acquitted in the Vigilance
Proceeding, this Court while disposing the Writ Petition,
directs O.P. No.1 to regularize the period of suspension
// 4 //
as due and admissible and release retiral benefits as
well as any service benefits as due to the petitioner as
expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of 4
(four) months from the date of receipt of this order.
8. The Writ Petition stands disposed of accordingly.
(Biraja Prasanna Satapathy)
Judge
Basudev
Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack
Date: 30-Jan-2026 10:56:12
