Disposed¶25

Batakrushna Pradhan v. State of Odisha

Orissa HC23 Sept 2025WP(C)/9513/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Orissa HC (Biraja Prasanna Satapathy, J.) disposed of W.P.(C) No.9513 of 2022 on 23.09.2025: disciplinary proceeding (Memorandum/Charge Sheet dt.21.09.2020, Annexure-3) initiated over incidents dating four years prior to superannuation held unsustainable under Rule 7(2)(b) of the Orissa Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1992; proceeding quashed and release of retiral benefits as due and admissible directed; concession by counsel for O.P. Nos.2 to 4; no monetary award quantified.

What did the court decide?

Impugned disciplinary proceeding initiated vide Memorandum dated 21.09.2020 (Annexure-3) quashed; respondents directed to take appropriate steps to release the petitioner's retiral benefits as due and admissible. The Writ Petition stands disposed of accordingly. ¶25

Batakrushna Pradhan Vs State of Odisha — Orissa HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶25

Issue for consideration

Whether a disciplinary proceeding initiated in respect of incidents alleged to have occurred prior to four years before the petitioner's date of superannuation is maintainable in terms of Rule 7(2)(b) of the Orissa Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1992. +1 more

¶22

Court's answer

Since the proceeding was initiated in respect of incidents which had taken place prior to four years of the petitioner's retirement, and this was undisputed, the Court, considering the stipulation in Rule 7(2)(b), quashed the impugned proceeding initiated vide Memorandum dated 21.09.2020 under Annexure-3.

¶24

Ratio / Principle

Since the proceeding is quashed, appropriate steps are to be taken to release the retiral benefits as due and admissible to the petitioner.

¶24

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Orissa at Cuttack (Biraja Prasanna Satapathy, J.), order dated 23.09.2025 in W.P.(C) No.9513 of 2022: the petitioner, Batakrushna Pradhan, challenged a disciplinary proceeding initiated vide Charge Sheet/Memorandum dated 21.09.2020 (Annexure-3), along with Office Orders dated 12.10.2020 and 28.10.2021 (Annexures-5 and 11), contending that, being founded on incidents alleged to have occurred more than four years before his superannuation, the proceeding was not maintainable in terms of Rule 7(2)(b) of the Orissa Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1992, and sought disbursal of full and regular pension. Counsel for O.P. Nos.2 to 4 conceded that the incidents related to a period four years prior to retirement. Finding it not disputed that the proceeding concerned incidents preceding retirement by four years, the Court quashed the proceeding initiated vide Memorandum dated 21.09.2020 and observed that appropriate steps be taken to release the retiral benefits as due and admissible to the petitioner. The Writ Petition was disposed of accordingly; only the proceeding under Annexure-3 was expressly quashed.

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

¶2

W.P.(C) No.9513 of 2022

¶3

Batakrushna Pradhan

¶4

…. Petitioner

¶5

Ms. P. Priyambada, Advocate

¶6

-versus-

¶7

State of Odisha and Others

¶8

…. Opposite Parties

¶9

Mr. B. Dash, Advocate for O.P. Nos.2 to 4

¶10

CORAM: JUSTICE BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY

ORDER

Order No.

23.09.2025

06. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual/Physical) Mode.

¶15

2. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

¶16

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

¶17

“ It is, therefore prayed, that under the facts and circumstances of the case stated above in the foregoing paragraphs, this Hon’ble Court be gracious enough admit the present writ petition and issue Rule NISI to the Opp. Parties calling upon them to show cause as to why:

¶18

(a) the Charge Sheet dt.21.09.2020, the Office Order dt.12.10.2020 and the office Order dated 28.10.2021 under Annexure-3, 5 and 11 shall not be quashed being bereft of the Rules as prescribed under the Orissa Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1992.

¶19

(b) Full and regular pension shall not be disbursed to the petitioner as per the Rules envisaged under the Orissa Civil Services (Pension) Rules,1992.

¶20

And if the Opp. Parties fail to show cause or show insufficient cause make the said rule absolute.”

¶21

// 2 //

¶22

4 . It is contended that since the proceeding was initiated in respect of various incidents which are prior to 4 (four) years of the date of superannuation of the petitioner, in terms of the provisions contained under Rule-7(2)(b) of the OCS(Pension) Rules, 1992, such a proceeding is not maintainable.

¶23

5 . Mr. B. Dash, learned counsel appearing for O.P. Nos.2 to 4 also fairly contended that such a proceeding has been initiated in respect of various incidents which relates to 4 (four) years prior to retirement of the petitioner.

¶24

6 . Considering the submissions so made and the stipulation contained in Rule-7(2)(b) of the Rules and since it is not disputed that such a proceeding has been initiated in respect of various incidents which had taken place prior to 4 years of the retirement of the petitioner, this Court is inclined to quash the impugned proceeding so initiated vide Memorandum dated 21.09.2020 under Annexure-3. It is however observed that since the proceeding is quashed, appropriate steps be taken to release the retiral benefits as due and admissible to the petitioner.

¶25

7 . The Writ Petition stands disposed of accordingly.

¶26

(Biraja Prasanna Satapathy) Judge

¶27

Basudev Signature Not Verified

¶28

Digitally Signed Signed by: BASUDEV SWAIN Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, C utta ck Date: 25-Sep-2025 11:57:11

¶29

Page 2 of 2

Batakrushna Pradhan v. State of Odisha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Batakrushna Pradhan 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

Sangram Kumar Nayak Vs State of Odisha

Chandan Panigrahi Vs Union of India

Chandrabhanu Deep Vs State of Odisha

Purusottam Mahanta Vs State of Odisha

Debanath Pradhan Vs State of Odisha

Tandikul Service Co-Operative Soceity Ltd, Jagatsinghpur Vs State of Odisha