TNI Bureau: There is a well-known saying—“when the fence itself starts eating the crop.” It reflects a troubling reality: when those entrusted with upholding the law are accused of bending it for personal gain, public faith in the system begins to erode.
A similar controversy has surfaced at the Odisha Electricity Regulatory Commission (OERC), where a senior and influential officer has come under scrutiny for allegedly violating service and financial rules over an extended period. Despite the matter being flagged through information obtained under the Right to Information (RTI) Act, no concrete action has been taken so far. With the official nearing retirement, concerns are growing that the allegations may go unexamined.
The allegations centre around OERC Secretary Priyabrata Pattanaik, who reportedly joined the commission on deputation from GRIDCO in 2005 and has continued there since. Based on RTI findings, a complaint has been filed by Balaram Champataray before the state government.
According to the complaint, Pattanaik served as Deputy Director from July 2005 to June 2008, and later as Joint Director until April 2012. He was subsequently appointed Director (Regulatory Affairs) and has remained in the organisation ever since.
Government rules clearly prescribe limits on deputation: an employee cannot serve more than 10 years on deputation during their career, nor more than 6 continuous years in a single organisation without a mandatory cooling-off period of at least 3 years in the parent department.
However, it is alleged that Pattanaik continued at OERC beyond these limits, from July 2005 to July 2015, without returning to GRIDCO or obtaining the required No Objection Certificate (NOC).
Following complaints, then OERC Chairman S.P. Nanda reportedly directed Pattanaik to either return to his parent organisation or opt for permanent absorption. Though Pattanaik expressed willingness to continue, questions arose over a gap period between July 2015 and May 2016. A subsequent order granting retrospective effect to his appointment from July 11, 2015, has itself come under scrutiny, as such backdated regularisation is reportedly not permissible under OERC norms.
Further allegations point to possible financial irregularities. Pattanaik is accused of availing a ₹20 lakh house building advance despite the property being in his wife’s name, raising doubts over eligibility.
Questions have also been raised regarding his Contributory Provident Fund (CPF), which is allegedly still being routed through OPTCL accounts despite his long-standing status as an OERC employee.
The complaint also highlights alleged favouritism in promotions. On April 4, 2012 – the day a senior OERC member K.C. Badu was due to retire—an interview was reportedly conducted hastily, leading to Pattanaik’s promotion to Director. The presence of the retiring member on the interview board has sparked concerns about conflict of interest.
Additionally, recruitment criteria for the post of Secretary were allegedly tailored in a way that favoured Pattanaik, effectively limiting competition and allowing him to continue in the position for years.
Notably, after a formal complaint was submitted to the State Vigilance Department, the Energy Department had, in a letter dated January 11, 2022, directed OERC to conduct an inquiry and submit a report. However, sources allege that no meaningful progress has been made, with the directive lost in administrative inaction.
The apparent silence of key institutions, including the Vigilance Department, Energy Department, Law Department, and even the Chief Minister’s Office, has now become a matter of public concern. With Pattanaik reportedly set to retire on March 31 and seeking a two-year extension, questions are being raised about accountability and transparency.
Observers believe that only a thorough and impartial investigation by the Vigilance Department can establish the facts and restore public confidence in the system.
