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. 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 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 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 al