WP(C)/26933/2024 of TARUKANTA DAS Vs STATE OF ODISHA on 29 August 2026

ORDER

29.08.2026 Order No. 03

1. This matter is taken up through hybrid mode.

2. Heard Mr. S. Behera, learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner and Mr P.K. Panda, learned Addl. Standing Counsel appearing for the Opp. Parties.

3. The present writ petition has been filed inter alia with the following prayer:- “Under the circumstances it is humbly prayed therefore that the Hon'ble Court may graciously be pleased to issue a writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ/writs by quashing the impugned order of punishment dated 26.07.2024 passed by the opp. party No.2 who is not competent to pass such an order of punishment under Annexure-15; And further be pleased to direct the opp. parties to disburse pension, DCRG and other retirement benefit to the petitioner forthwith;

Or pass any other order/orders as this Hon'ble Court may think fit and proper, And allow this Writ Application.”

4. It is contended that Petitioner while in service, the proceeding in question was initiated by Opp. Party No. 2 vide memorandum dtd.29.04.2010 under Annexure-3.

4.1. It is contended that during pendency of the proceeding, Petitioner retired from his services on attaining the age of superannuation on 28.02.2023. However, without converting the proceeding to a proceeding under Rule 7 of OCS (Pension) Rules, 1992, Petitioner being a retired employee, the proceeding was disposed of by Opp. Party No. 2 vide the impugned order dtd.26.07.2024 under Annexure-15.

4.2. Learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner while assailing the impugned order, contended that since during pendency of the proceeding, Petitioner retired on 28.02.2023, the proceeding could not have been disposed of by following the provisions contained under Rule 15 of OCS (CCA) Rules, 1962 and instead the proceeding should have proceeded under Rule 7 of 1992 Rules. It is accordingly contended that the impugned order since has been passed in an illegal way, the same requires interference of this Court. Rule 7 of the Rules reads as follows:-

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 reemployment 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) deals with procedure:

(a) If departmental proceedings were instituted while the servant was in service, after retirement it shall be deemed to be proceedings under this rule and continued by same authority (b) If not instituted while in service:

(i) shall not be instituted save with sanction of Government

(ii) shall not be in respect of any event which took place more than 4 years before such institution

(iii) shall be conducted by such authority as Government may direct

(c) No judicial proceedings, if not instituted while the Government servant was in service, shall be instituted in respect of a cause of action which arose or event which took place more than 4 years before Explanation of Rule 7:

(a) 'serious crime' includes offence under Official Secret Act, 1923

(b) 'grave misconduct' includes communication/disclosure of any secret official code, password, sketch, plan, etc. obtained while holding office so as to prejudicially affect public interest or security of In simple meaning: Govt. can stop your full pension/gratuity if you are found guilty of grave misconduct, but for cases started AFTER retirement, it can only be for events within last 4 years.”

5. Mr. P.K. Panda, learned Addl. Standing Counsel on the other hand made his submission supporting the impugned order basing on the stand taken in the counter affidavit. It is contended that since the impugned order is an appealable one, the writ petition is not maintainable.

5.1. It is further contended that since without availing the alternate remedy, Petitioner has challenged the order passed by the disciplinary authority under Annexure-15, Petitioner be directed to move the appellate authority against such an order. However, it is not disputed that Petitioner during pendency of the proceeding, has retired on 28.02.2023.

6. Having heard learned counsel appearing for the Parties and considering the submission made, this Court finds that Petitioner while in service, the proceeding in question was initiated against him vide memorandum dtd.29.04.2010 under Annexure-3. It is not disputed that during pendency of the proceeding, Petitioner retired on attaining the age of superannuation on 28.02.2023.

6.1. However, as found from the impugned order, the proceeding was disposed of by Opp. Party No. 2 vide order dtd.26.07.2024 under Annexure-15, relying on the provisions contained under Rule 15 of OCS (CCA) Rules, 1962. Since Petitioner during pendency of the proceeding, retired on 28.02.2023, the proceeding could not have been disposed of, without following the provisions contained under Rule 7 of the OCS (Pension) Rules, 1992.

6.2. In view of such illegality and irregularity which is apparent on the face of the impugned order, this Court is of the view that the impugned order is not sustainable in the eye of law. Stand taken by the learned ASC that the impugned order is an appealable one, is also not acceptable, as the impugned order has been passed without following due procedure of law.

6.3. In that view of the matter, this Court while quashing the impugned order dtd.26.07.2024 so passed by Opp. Party No. 2 under Annexure-15, directs Opp. Party No. 2 to dispose of the proceeding by following the provisions contained under Rule 7 of the OCS (Pension) Rules, 1992. Since the proceeding is of the year 2010 and Petitioner had already retired on 28.02.2023, this Court directs Opp. Party No. 2 to dispose of the proceeding so directed, as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of four (4) weeks from the date of receipt of this order.

7. The writ petition accordingly stands disposed of. (BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY)

Judge Sneha Digitally Signed Signed by: SNEHANJALI PARIDA Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Date: 02-Sep-2026 10:55:35 Signature Not Verified