Allowed¶40

Bijaya Kumar Panda v. State of Odisha

Orissa HC18 Nov 2025WP(C)/5271/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Review of disciplinary penalty under Rule 31 r.w. Rule 32, OCS (CCA) Rules 1962 - six-month limitation in Proviso to Rule 32 - second show-cause dated 11.02.2022 issued after punishment order dated 03.07.2020 (stoppage of two increments without cumulative effect, already implemented) quashed as not maintainable; writ petition allowed; pending I.As. disposed of (Biraja Prasanna Satapathy, J., 18.11.2025).

What did the court decide?

Writ petition allowed; the second show-cause issued on 11.02.2022 under Annexure-5 quashed; all pending I.As. along with the writ petition disposed of. ¶40

Bijaya Kumar Panda Vs State of Odisha — Orissa HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK WP(C) No. 5271 of 2022

¶2

Bijaya Kumar Panda

¶3

..... Petitioner Mr. S.K. Ojha, Advocate

¶4

-versus-

¶5

State of Odisha & Ors.

¶6

..... Opposite Parties Mr. C.K. Pradhan, AGA

¶7

CORAM:

¶8

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY ORDER

¶9

18.11.2025

¶10

Order No.12

¶11

This matter is taken up through hybrid mode.

¶12

Heard Mr. S.K. Ojha, learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner and Mr. C.K. Pradhan, learned Addl. Govt. Advocate appearing for the Opp. Parties.

¶13

The present writ petition has been filed inter alia challenging the 2^nd show-cause issued on 11.02.2022 by the Govt.-Opp. Party No. 1 under Annexure-5.

¶14

While assailing the said show-cause, learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner contended that in the proceeding initiated against the Petitioner by Opp. Party No. 1 vide Memorandum dtd.18.08.2017 under Annexure-1, Petitioner was imposed with the punishment vide order dtd.03.07.2020 under Annexure-2. Punishment so imposed reads as follows:-

¶15

“1. Stoppage of two increments without cumulative effect.

¶16

2. He is warned for future.”

¶17

4.1. It is contended that since such an order of punishment was passed just prior to the retirement of the Petitioner, Petitioner thought it proper not to challenge the same and the said order was also implemented by withholding two (2) increments without cumulative effect and the said fact is also reflected in the service book of the Petitioner so available under Annexure-3.

¶18

4.2. Learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner contended that much after implementation of the order of punishment, the impugned 2^nd show-cause was issued on 11.02.2022 under Annexure-5, purportedly in exercise of the power conferred under Rule 31 of the OCS (CCA) Rules 1962 (in short Rules) r.w. Rule 32 of the said Rules. Rule 31 & 32 of the Rules reads as follows:-

¶19

“31. Governor's power to review - Notwithstanding anything contained in these rules, the Governor may, on his motion or otherwise, after calling for the records of the case, review any order which is made or is appealable under these rules or the rules repealed by Rule 33, and, after consultation with the Commission where such consultation is necessary -

¶20

(a) confirm, modify or set aside the order;

¶21

(b) impose any penalty or set aside, reduce, confirm or enhance the penalty imposed by the order;

¶22

(c) remit the case to the authority which made the order or any other authority directing such further action or inquiry as he considers proper in the circumstances of the case or

¶23

(d) pass such other orders as he deems fit;

¶24

Provided that -

¶25

(i) an order imposing or enhancing a penalty shall not be passed unless the person concerned has been given an

¶26

Page 2 of 5.

¶27

opportunity or making any representation which he may wish to made against such enhanced penalty;

¶28

(ii) if the Governor proposes to impose any of the penalties specified in Clauses (vi) to (ix) of Rule 13 in a case where an enquiry under Rule 15 has not been held, he shall, subject to the provisions of Rule 18, direct that such inquiry be held and, thereafter, on consideration of the proceedings of such inquiry and after giving the person concerned an opportunity of making any representation which he may wish to make against such penalty, pass such orders as he may deem fit.

¶29

32. Review of Orders in Disciplinary Cases - The authority to which an appeal against an order imposing any of the penalties specified in Rule 13 lies may, of its own motion or otherwise, call for the records of the case in a disciplinary proceeding, review any order passed in such a case and, after consultation with the Commission. where such consultation is necessary, pass such orders as it deems fit as if the Government servant had preferred an appeal against such order:

¶30

Provided that no action under this rule shall be initiated more than six months after the date of the order to be reviewed.”

¶31

4.3. Learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner placing reliance on the aforesaid two provisions, contended that as provided under the Proviso to Rule 32, no action under this Rule shall be initiated more than 6 months after the date of the order to be reviewed. Since in the instant case, the order of punishment was passed on 03.07.2020 and the impugned 2^nd show-cause has been issued on 11.02.2022, which is admittedly more than 6 months after the date

¶32

Page 3 of 5.

¶33

of order, such a review is not at all entertainable with issuance of the impugned 2^nd show-cause under Annexure-5.

¶34

4.4. It is also contended that since the order of punishment imposed after disposal of the proceeding was implemented, there was no occasion to go for review. The punishment proposed in the impugned 2^nd show-cause is also not a major punishment, as in the impugned show-cause, the disciplinary authority has proposed to impose the punishment of withholding of 6% of the pension for a period of two (2) years. Making all these submissions, learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner contended that the impugned show-cause is not sustainable in the eye of law.

¶35

Learned Addl. Govt. Advocate on the other hand made his submission basing on the stand taken in the counter affidavit. It is contended that after disposal of the proceeding vide order dtd.03.07.2020 under Annexure-2, since in terms of the provisions contained under Rule 31, it was decided to review the order and consultation with the OPSC is not a mandatory requirement, the impugned 2^nd show-cause was issued under Annexure-5. However, because of the interim order passed by this Court, no further progress has been made to the said show-cause.

¶36

5.1. It is contended that since power of such review is vested on the Govt. by order of the Governor under Rule 31, no illegality or irregularity can be found with the same. It is also contended that since the writ petition has been filed against a show-cause, which is not entertainable, Petitioner be directed to file his reply to the same.

¶37

Having heard learned counsel appearing for the Parties and considering the submissions made, this Court finds that Petitioner

¶38

Page 4 of 5.

¶39

while in service, the proceeding in question was initiated vide Memorandum dtd.18.08.2017 under Annexure-1. As found and which is not disputed, the proceeding was disposed of vide order dtd.03.07.2020 under Annexure-2. It is also not disputed that the order was implemented by withholding two increments without cumulative effect. But subsequently, the impugned 2^nd show-cause was issued on 11.02.2022 under Annexure-5 purportedly in exercise of the power conferred under Rule 31 of the Rules r.w. Rule 32.

¶40

6.1. This Court relying on the provisions contained under Proviso to Rule 32 of the Rules, is of the view that no such review is to be initiated after six (6) months of the order to be reviewed. Since in the instant case the order of punishment was passed on 03.07.2020 and the 2^nd show-cause has been issued on 11.02.2022, it is the view of this Court that, the impugned 2^nd show-cause dt.11.02.2022 under Annexure-5 is not maintainable in the eye of law. Therefore, this Court is inclined to quash the 2^nd show-cause so issued on 11.02.2022 under Annexure-5 and allows the writ petition.

¶41

All the pending I.As. along with writ petition stand disposed of.

¶42

(BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY) Judge

¶43

Sneha

¶44

Signature Not Verified

¶45

Digitally Signed Signed by: SNEHANJALI PARIDA Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, C utta ck Date: 24-Nov-2025 10:36:54

¶46

Page 5 of 5.

Bijaya Kumar Panda v. State of Odisha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bijaya Kumar Panda 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

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Bharat Ku.Barik Vs State of Orissa

Trinath Pradhan Vs State of Odisha

Dillip Kumar Nayak Vs Rosalini Biswal, Dy.G.M. (Hrd), Nee, Optcl

Sarada Prasad Mohanty Vs State of Odisha

Sanjaya Naik Vs State of Odisha

Raj Ku.Patel Vs State and Ors.