Orissa High Court Grants Relief To 90-Year-Old Deprived Of Retiral Benefits Due To Disciplinary Proceedings Pending Since 1994
The Orissa High Court has held that retiral benefits of a delinquent employee cannot be withheld indefinitely for no fault on his part, which can only be attributed to the disciplinary authority.While quashing a 32-year-old disciplinary proceeding against 90-year-old retired employee, a Bench of Justice Biraja Prasanna Satapathy held–“The petitioner though filed his reply on 22.05.2001...
The Orissa High Court has held that retiral benefits of a delinquent employee cannot be withheld indefinitely for no fault on his part, which can only be attributed to the disciplinary authority.
While quashing a 32-year-old disciplinary proceeding against 90-year-old retired employee, a Bench of Justice Biraja Prasanna Satapathy held–
“The petitioner though filed his reply on 22.05.2001 under Annexure-2 and enquiry report was submitted on 12.12.2001 under Annexure-3, but the fact, which is not disputed, the proceeding is yet to be disposed of on the face of retirement of the petitioner on 31.08.1995. It is also found that in the criminal proceeding vide order dated 17.03.1999, learned S.D.J.M., Kendrapara in G.R. Case No.776 of 1996 though directed the C.B.I. to cause further investigation but no such investigation has yet been undertaken.”
A disciplinary proceeding was initiated and charges were framed against the petitioner, who was working as a Senior Clerk-cum-Cashier, in the year 1994 on the ground of misappropriation of public money to the tune of Rs.13,92,266.34. The proceeding was taken over by the CDI in 1998.
On the basis of the aforesaid charges, a parallel criminal case was also instituted. Notably, in the criminal case, the jurisdictional SDJM in 1999 had ordered for further investigation by the CBI in the case. However, the said investigation was never conducted. The disciplinary proceeding remained stalled ever since.
Against the above backdrop, Advocate Sailaza Nandan Das appearing for the petitioner contended that the impending proceeding should be quashed and all his retiral benefits must be released, especially when no delay is attributable to him. In support of his contention, a plethora of judicial precedents were relied upon. On the other hand, the State argued that the proceeding must remain alive since the petitioner is allegedly involved in misappropriation of Government money to the tune of Rs.13,92,266.34.
Upon hearing rival submissions, the Court noted that the proceeding has been in existence since the last three decades and in the meantime, the petitioner has turned 90-year-old awaiting his retiral benefits. Though charges were framed and the enquiry officer has submitted his report, the proceeding has remained pending for no fault attributable to the petitioner.
Therefore, Justice Satapathy relied upon the judgments of the Apex Court in the cases of P.V. Mahadevan v. M.D. Tamil Nadu Housing Board (2005), Prem Nath Bali v. Registrar, High Court of Delhi & Anr. (2015) and State of Andhra Pradesh v. N. Radhakishan (1998), where it was commonly held that though disciplinary proceedings should be allowed to take its normal course, but delay causes prejudice to the charged officer unless it can be shown that he is to be blamed for the delay. Ergo, the Court is to balance these two diverse considerations.
Acknowledging the unreasonable delay in disposing of the disciplinary proceeding, the Court directed the opposite party to release all the retiral benefits admissible in favour of the petitioner within three months, failing which he shall be entitled to get interest @ 6% on all such retiral benefits.
Case Title: Bhabagrahi Das v. State of Odisha & Ors.
Case No: W.P.(C) No. 35254 of 2025
Date of Judgment: May 14, 2026
Counsel for the Petitioner: Mr. Sailaza Nandan Das, Advocate
Counsel for the Respondents: Mr. S.P. Das, Addl. Standing Counsel
Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ori) 50