Pramod Kumar Rath Vs State of Odisha

Advocates Appeared in this case For Petitioner - Mr.Bidyadhar Mansingh Advocate For Opp. Parties - Mr.D.N. Lenka, Addl. Govt. Advocate. ---

¶11

CORAM

¶12

MR. JUSTICE DIXIT KRISHNA SHRIPAD

¶13

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Date of Hearing & Judgment : 09.12.2025

¶14

¶15

PER DIXIT KRISHNA SHRIPAD, J .

¶16

The essential grievance of the petitioner is reflected in the

¶17

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

¶18

“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:-

¶19

Page 1 of 4

¶20

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

¶21

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

¶22

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

¶23

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.

¶24

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

¶25

Page 2 of 4

¶26

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

¶27

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:-

¶28

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.

¶29

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.

¶30

Page 3 of 4

¶31

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.

¶32

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.

¶33

Now, no costs.

¶34

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

¶35

(Dixit Krishna Shripad) Judge

¶36

Orissa High Court, Cuttack The 9^th Day of December,2025/Basu

¶37

Signature Not Verified

¶38

Digitally Signed Signed by: BASUDEV NAYAK Designation: ADDL. DY. REGISTRAR-CUM-ADDL. PRINCIPAL SECRETARY Reason: Authentication Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA : CUTTACK Date: 11-Dec-2025 13:55:23

¶39

Page 4 of 4

Pramod Kumar Rath v. State of Odisha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pramod Kumar Rath v. State of Odisha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Prabhakar Kharsel Vs State Level Scrutiny Committee

Sandhyarani Mishra Vs State of Odisha

Dr. Shabnam Parveen Vs State of Odisha

Prasanna Kumar Dash Vs State of Odisha

Prasanta Kumar Mallick Vs State of Odisha

Santanu Kumar Mohanty Vs Shri Jagannath Mahaprabhu Bije Srikhetra, Puri