Premananda Panda vs State Of Odisha on 31 March, 2026

[Cites 2, Cited by 0]

Orissa High Court

Premananda Panda vs State Of Odisha on 31 March, 2026

Bench: V. Narasingh

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

W.P.(C) NO.4527 of 2020

(An application under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution
of India).

Premananda Panda .... Petitioner

-versus-

1. State of Odisha, .... Opposite Parties
represented through its
Secretary, Department
of Health and Family
Welfare, Lokseva
Bhawan, At/ P.O.
Bhubaneswar, District-
Khurda.
2. Director of Health
Services, Heads of
Department Building,
At/P.O. Bhubaneswar,
District-- Khurda
3. Chief District Medical
Officer, Balasore

For Petitioner : Mr. S.B. Mohanty, Advocate

For Opposite Parties : Mr. C.R. Swain, AGA

CORAM: JUSTICE V. NARASINGH

DATE OF FINAL HEARING : 12.12.2025

DATE OF JUDGEMENT : 31.03.2026

Page 1 of 11
W.P.(C) No.4527 of 2020
V. Narasingh, J. Heard Mr. Mohanty, learned counsel for
the Petitioner and Mr. Swain, learned AGA for the
Opposite Parties.
1. The Petitioner who was working as a Senior Clerk
in the office of C.D.M.O., Balasore, has filed the present
Writ Application being aggrieved by the imposition of
penalty in a disciplinary proceeding, seeking the
following prayers:
"xxx xxx xxx
It is therefore prayed that, this Hon'ble
court may graciously be Pleased:-
(i) To admit the Writ Petition
(ii) To quash the order dtd. 09.03.2018
passed by the Secretary, Department of
Health and Family Welfare;
(iii) To direct the Opposite parties to
release full pension- Gratuity and other
retiral dues at the rate of 12% Interest
from the date of retirement due to
delayed payment and illegal withholding;
(iv) To further direct the opposite parties
to regularise the period of suspension
and sanction arrear salary from the
period of suspension till retirement by
sanctioning suitable Increment and
pension be fixed accordingly.
xxx xxx xxx"

2. To substantiate the prayer, the factual as well as
legal points advanced by the Petitioner are briefly stated
as under:-
The Petitioner was working as a Senior Clerk in
the office of C.D.M.O, Balasore and was promoted to the

Page 2 of 11
W.P.(C) No.4527 of 2020
post of Head Clerk on 30.09.2006 and posted as such in
the office of C.D.M.O, Nilagiri.
2-A. During such incumbency of the Petitioner, the
Director of Health Services created 97 Class-IV posts in
different Primary Health Centers and Community Health
Centers including the District Head Quarter Hospital,
Balasore. The C.D.M.O. Balasore on 03.06.2010 sought
clarification relating to the mode of appointment of the
Class-IV employees, in response to which Opposite Party
No.1( State of Orissa, represented through its Secretary,
Department of Health and Family Welfare, Lokseva
Bhawan, Bhubaneswar, Khurda) communicated a letter
to the C.D.M.O., Balasore on 13.05.2010, at Annexure-5
by clarifying that the engagement of Class-IV employees
would be made against the sanctioned vacant post on
daily wage basis by releasing their wages as per the
Labour and Employment Department Notification.
2-B. Another clarification on 06.10.2010 was issued by
Opposite Party No.1 communicating the same to the
C.D.M.O, relating to the engagement of Class-IV
employees on daily wage basis.
2-C. On receiving such clarification the C.D.M.O.,
Balasore published an advertisement on 03.05.2011
inviting application in order to engage personnel on daily
wage basis. After such selection and engagement the
Class-IV employees were posted to different P.H.C. and
C.H.C.

Page 3 of 11
W.P.(C) No.4527 of 2020
2-D. In the meantime the Govt. passed an order on
18.11.2011 directing the C.D.M.O to terminate the 97
Class-IV employees with immediate effect and
accordingly the C.D.M.O., Balasore on 21.11.2011
retrenched the Class-IV employees.
2-E. Challenging the said order, the 97 workers
approached this Court in W.P.(C) No.31192 of 2011 and
obtained the stay order over the termination order of the
C.D.M.O.. Finding the action of C.D.M.O. and others to
be not in conformity with the official procedure, the
Government on 21.11.2011 annexed as Annexure-9 to
the Writ Petition issued a Memorandum of charge
initiating a joint proceeding against the C.D.M.O. Dr.
Sk.I. Ahmed and Dr. N.C. Behera , Ex-A.D.M.O. and the
Petitioner, Head Clerk.
Though the Petitioner submitted the statement of
defence on 21.12.2011(Annexure-10) not only refuting
the charges but also by making the substantial prayer to
revoke the order of suspension, on the ground of
procedural infirmity and non-establishment of a Prima
facie case against him, the authorities did not consider
his case for revocation of suspension even without
conducting any periodical review.
2-E. During suspension, the Petitioner retired on
superannuation w.e.f. 30.04.2013.
2-F. It is alleged that enquiry was conducted in a
perfunctory manner and consequently culminated in

Page 4 of 11
W.P.(C) No.4527 of 2020
erroneous conclusion that the charges against the
Petitioner were established.
2-G. On receiving the enquiry report, the Govt.
published a notice on 11.06.2013 regarding continuance
of the proceeding under Rule 7(2) of O.C.S. (Pension)
Rules, 1992 on availing leave.
2-H. The Petitioner by way of O.A. No. 3812(C) of 2013
challenged the impugned order of the Govt. dtd.
02.06.2014 by which his pension at the rate of 5% was
withheld permanently inter alia on the ground that the
said order was passed without due procedure as
prescribed under Rule (7)1 of O.C.S. (pension) Rules,

1
7. Right of Government to Withhold or Withdraw Pension- (1) The Government reserve to
themselves the right of withholding a pension or gratuity, or both either in full or in part, or withdrawing a
pension in full or in part. whether permanently or for specified period and of ordering recovery from a
pension or gratuity of the whole or part of any pecuniary loss caused to the Government, if in any
departmental or judicial proceedings, the pensioner is found guilty of grave misconduct or negligence in
duty during the period of his service including service rendered on re-employment after retirement:
Provided that the Odisha Public Service Commission shall be consulted before any final orders
are passed:
Provided further that when a part of pension is withheld/withdrawn, the amount of such pension
shall not be reduced below the amount of minimum limit.
(2) (a) Such departmental proceedings referred to in sub-rule (1), if instituted while the Government
servant was in service, whether before his retirement or during his re employment, shall, after the final
retirement of the Government servant, be deemed to be a proceedings under this rule and shall be
continued and concluded by the authority by which they were commenced in the same manner as if the
Government servant had continued in service:
Provided that when the departmental proceedings are instituted by an authority, subordinate to
Government that authority shall submit a report recording its findings to the Government.
(b) such departmental proceedings as referred to in sub-rule (1) if not instituted while the Government
servant was in service, whether before his retirement or during his re-employment-
(i) shall not be instituted save with the sanction of Government;
(ii) shall not be in respect of any event which took place more than four years before such institution; and
(iii) shall be conducted by such authority and in such place as the Government may, direct and in
accordance with the procedure applicable to departmental proceedings in which an order of dismissal
from service could be made in relation to the Government servant during his service;
c) [deleted] Vide Finance Department Notification No.33464/F., dtd.04.08.2006
(d) In the case of Government servant who has retired on attaining the age of superannuation or otherwise
and against whom any departmental or judicial proceedings are instituted or where departmental
proceeding are instituted or where departmental proceedings are continued under clauses (a) and (b), a
provisional pension as provided in rule 66 shall be sanctioned.
(e) Where the Government decide not to withhold or withdraw pension but order recovery of pecuniary
loss from pension, the recovery shall not ordinarily be made at a rate exceeding one-third of the pension
admissible on the date of retirement of a Government servant.

Page 5 of 11
W.P.(C) No.4527 of 2020
1992, since admittedly by the alleged conduct of the
Petitioner, no pecuniary loss was caused to the Govt.
The Odisha Administrative Tribunal quashed the order in
part as per the Order dated 06.04.2016, which is
extracted hereunder for convenience of ready
reference:-

''The order passed by the Principal
Secretary at Annexure-20 does not say
that the Orissa Public Service Commission
had been consulted before imposing the
penalty of withholding of 5% pension
permanently. Rather the total reading of
Annexuer-20 gives a clear impression
that the Orissa Public Service Commission
has never been consulted before
imposing such penalty and therefore on
this sole ground the withholding of 5%
pension permanently is liable to be
quashed.
Besides this there is no finding in
the inquiry report that any pecuniary loss
was caused to the Govt. by appointing
Class-IV, employees by the C.D.M.O.,
Balasore on daily wage basis instead of
appointing them through Service Provider
and on that ground also withholding of
5% pension permanently cannot be up-
held.
In the result, the punishment
awarded by the Principal Secretary as at
Annexure-20 is liable to be quashed. It is
seen from the punishment order at
Annexure-20 that no order has been
passed with regard to the suspension
period of the applicant.
Hence, while allowing the O.A in
part we quash the punishment awarded

Page 6 of 11
W.P.(C) No.4527 of 2020
to the applicant at Annexure-20
withholding 5% of pension permanently
and we also direct the respondents to

take a decision in respect of the period of suspension of the applicant within a period of three months from the date of receipt of the order as the same has not been dealt in the punishment order and communicate the decision thereof to the applicant. With these orders, the O.A is disposed of."

It is apt to note that the aforesaid order of the learned OAT attained finality.

However, it is urged that deliberately misinterpreting the aforesaid order of OAT or rather flouting it, though no liberty was granted by such order to the authorities to proceed with departmental proceedings from the stage of purported illegality, in the guise of complying with the said order, the Opposite Party No.1, i.e., the Government in the Health & Family Welfare Department, upon receiving the concurrence of the OPSC, passed the following order vide Order No. 7775 dated 09.03.2018.

"1) Withholding of 5% Pension permanently.

2) The period of suspension be treated as such."

which is the subject matter of adjudication in the present case on different grounds as advanced by the Petitioner in this writ petition, as noted.

Page 7 of 11 W.P.(C) No.4527 of 2020

3. Out of which two grounds are of seminal importance;

(i) the order of the OAT setting aside the punishment on the ground of technicalities, as well as not satisfying the requirement under Rule 71 of the O.C.S. (pension) Rules, 1992, without giving any liberty to take a fresh decision on the punishment matter, had only granted the liberty to the Opposite Party No.1 to take a decision on treatment of the suspension period, which ought to have been issued but failed by the Opposite Party No.1 at the first instance.

(ii) whether the suspension order and suspension period as such can stand in isolation when there is no punishment order sustainable in the departmental proceeding.

4. As it is borne out from the counter and arguments advanced at the behest of the Opposite Parties, they have justified their action as per the impugned order dated 09.03.2018, inter alia on the ground that the same is post requisite concurrence from the Odisha Public Service Commission (OPSC), thereby addressing and rectifying the procedural deficiency which weighed with the Odisha Administrative Tribunal (OAT) in passing the order. For which non-assailing of such order of the Tribunal pales into insignificance.

Page 8 of 11 W.P.(C) No.4527 of 2020

5. Further, the treatment of the period of suspension is officially recognized and this ensures that the revised order conforms to the legal requirements and upholds the principles of "administrative justice". Consequently, the revised order is legally sound and compliant with the procedural norms, thereby addressing the issues previously flagged by the Tribunal, in passing the order, quoted above.

6. On perusal of the respective pleadings and after going through the rival contentions, this Court is of the prima facie view that there is sufficient force in the grounds urged by the Petitioner. The order of OAT dated 06.04.2016 which has already attained finality has never allowed the Opposite Party No.1 to restore the disciplinary proceeding vide Office Memo No.24515/H dated 21.11.2011 to the stage of issuance of 2nd show cause and to proceed accordingly.

7. On the contrary, in absence of any such liberty, the action of the Opposite Party No.1 in reviving the proceeding and imposing the same penalty once again by getting concurrence of OPSC is nothing but an action without jurisdiction, rather contumacious for deliberately misinterpreting the unambiguous judgment passed by OAT. Therefore, the punishment of stoppage of 5% pension permanently cannot be sustained, and as such, the said punishment is set aside.

Page 9 of 11 W.P.(C) No.4527 of 2020

Coming to the punishment of treating the suspension period as such, this court humbly records its finding as under:-

a. In absence of any punishment codified in O.C.S. (Pension) Rule in the nature of suspension, such a punishment treating the period of suspension as such is not sustainable and maintainable. b. If at all the period of suspension is to be treated as an administrative order, then also the same cannot be sustained as no order of punishment could be sustained against the Petitioner as already held. Therefore such period is required to be treated as on duty.

8. Accordingly, while setting aside the order of punishment dated 09.03.2018, this Court holds that the Petitioner is entitled for all financial and consequential benefits including appropriate fixation of his pay in order to arrive at the last pay which will be the basis for calculating the pension and other consequential retirement benefits of the Petitioner.

The Opposite Parties are directed to calculate the entire amount, draw and disburse the said arrear amount within three months from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this Judgment to be produced by the Petitioner failing which the same will entail penal Page 10 of 11 W.P.(C) No.4527 of 2020 interest @8% per annum from the date of entitlement, till actual payment to be made to the Petitioner.

9. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of. Costs made easy.

(V. Narasingh) Judge Orissa High Court, Cuttack, Dated the 31st March, 2026 /Ayesha Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: AYESHA ROUT Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Date: 16-Apr-2026 20:11:06 Page 11 of 11 W.P.(C) No.4527 of 2020

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Orissa High Court