WP(C)/19817/2021 of AKSHAYA KUMAR NAYAK Vs STATE OF ODISHA on 25 August 2026

ORDER

25.08.2026

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

2. Heard learned counsel appearing for the Parties.

3. Petitioner has filed the present Writ Petition inter alia with the following prayer:- “In the above facts and circumstances, the petitioner humbly prays that this Hon’ble Court may be graciously pleased to issue a writ / writs in the nature of writ of Certiorari quashing the Proceedings as per Memorandum dtd.25.02.2021 under Annexure-5 Series and Order dtd.29.03.2021 under annexure-7 after declaring those as illegal. And further pleased to issue a writ / writs in the nature of writ of Mandamus commanding the opposite parties to pay the regular Pension, Unutilized Leave Salary for 300 days, Gratuity, RACP and others retiral benefits within a stipulated time with 12 % interest and cost. And further be pleased to pass any other order / orders, direction / directions as deemed fit and proper.

// 2 //

And for this act of kindness, the Petitioner shall remain ever pray

4. It is contended that Petitioner while continuing as against the post of Range Officer, he retired from service on attaining the age of superannuation on 31.01.2018.

4.1. It is contended that even though it is not disputed that Petitioner is a retired employee, but Opposite Party No.1 initiated the impugned proceeding vide Memorandum dtd.25.02.2021 under Annexure-5-Series under Rule-15 of the OCS (CCA) Rules, 1962 (in short 1962 Rules).

4.2. It is contended that since Petitioner is a retired employee, no proceeding under Rule-15 of the 1962 Rules, could have been initiated against him, so initiated vide Memorandum dtd.25.02.2021.

4.3. It is further contended that on the ground of initiation of the proceeding, Petitioner’s claim for release of his retiral dues, was also rejected by Opposite Party No.1 vide order dtd.29.03.2021 under Annexure-7.

4.4. It is vehemently that since the very initiation of the proceeding under Rule-15 of the Rules is not maintainable, not only the initiation of the proceeding is bad in the eye of law, but also the rejection of the Petitioner’s claim to get his retiral dues vide the impugned order under Annexure-7.

// 3 //

4.5. A further submission is also made that since the impugned proceeding under Annexure-5 has been initiated in respect of an event of the year 2013, even a proceeding under Rule-7 of the OCS (Pension) Rules, 1992 (in short 1992 Rules) cannot be initiated, in view of the bar contained under Rule-7(2)(b)(i)(ii) of the 1992 Rules. Rule-7(2)(b)(i)(ii) of the 1992 Rules reads as follows:- "7. (2) (b) Such departmental proceedings as referred to in sub-rule (1) if not instituted while the Government servant was in service, whether before retirement or during his re-employment:-

(i) shall not be instituted save with the sanction of the 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;"

4.6. It is accordingly contended that on any count, no proceeding could have been initiated against the Petitioner, so initiated vide Memorandum dtd.25.02.2021 under Annexure-5 and consequential rejection of the Petitioner’s claim to get his retiral dues vide order dtd.29.03.2021 under Annexure-7.

4.7. Making all the submissions, learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner contended that with quashing

// 4 //

of the impugned proceeding initiated vide Memorandum dtd.25.02.2021 and rejection of the Petitioner’s claim to get the retiral benefits so passed vide order dtd.29.03.2021 under Annexure-7, Opposite Party No.1 be directed to release all the retiral dues of the Petitioner as due and admissible within a stipulated time period.

5. Mr. S.P. Das, learned Addl. Standing Counsel for the State on the other hand made his submission basing on the stand taken in the counter affidavit.

6. It is contended that even though a proceeding has been initiated under Rule-15 of the Rules, but it has to be held that such a proceeding has been initiated in terms of the provisions contained under Rule-15 of the 1962 Rules read with Rule- Rule-7 of the 1992, Rules.

6.1. It is contended that since the proceeding was initiated against the Petitioner vide Memorandum dtd.25.02.2021, claim of the Petitioner to release his retiral dues was rightly rejected vide the impugned order dtd.29.03.2021 under Annexure-7. The stand taken in Para-4 of the counter affidavit, so relied on by the learned ASC reads as follows:- “4. That it is most respectfully submitted, the Petitioner superannuated from service on 31.01.2018 as Range Officer, Kanika Wildlife Range. The Petitioner failed to hand over complete charge of Kanika Wildlife Range to his successor. Such handover of charge was complete only after four months on 30.05.2018 due to the negligence of the Petitioner. Upon verification of the Hand

// 5 //

Over Charge List, the Petitioner was prima facie found to have indulged in inter alia misappropriation/ usurping of Government Property and Misappropriation of Government money. Consequently, disciplinary proceedings under Rule 15 of the OCS (CC&A) Rules, 1962 read with Rule 7(2)(b) of the OCS Pension Rules, 1992 have been initiated against the Petitioner vide Memorandum of Charge dated 25.02.2021, which is within the statutory period of limitation under Rule 7(2)(b) of the OCS Pension Rules, 1992. For this reason, the Petitioner is not entitled to release of final pension and gratuity under Rule 66 of the OCS Pension Rules, 1992. Needless to state herein, the Petitioner has already been sanctioned the provisional pension and unutilized leave salary A copy of the Memorandum of charge dated 25.02.2021 is annexed to the writ petition as Annexuxre-5 Series”.

6.2. It is also contended that the impugned proceeding was initiated because of the alleged negligence on the part of the Petitioner in discharging his duty, after he joined in Kanika Wildlife Range vide Notification dtd.03.08.2013.

6.3. It is accordingly contended that the proceeding has been rightly initiated against the Petitioner under Annexure-5, with rejection of his claim to get his retiral benefits vide order under Annexure-7.

7. Having heard learned counsel appearing for the Parties and considering the submissions made, this Court finds and which is not disputed, Petitioner while continuing as a Forest Ranger, he retired from service on attaining the age of superannuation on 31.01.2018. As found the proceeding was initiated vide Memorandum

// 6 //

dtd.25.02.2021 under Annexure-5 in terms of Rule-15 of 1962 Rules.

7.1. Since Petitioner is a retired employee having been retired w.e.f. 31.01.2018, it is the view of this Court that no proceeding under Rule-15 of the 1962 Rules is maintainable, nor can be initiated. The stand taken in Para-4 of the counter affidavit that the proceeding was initiated under Rule-15 read with Rule-7 of the 1992 Rules is also not acceptable, as no such thing is reflected in the impugned Memorandum dtd.25.02.2021. Hence, the stand taken by the Opposite Parties that the proceeding was initiated under Rule-15 of the 1962 Rules read with Rule-7 of the 1992 Rules is not acceptable to this Court.

7.2. Not only that as found from the impugned Memorandum, the proceeding was initiated with regard to the alleged irregularities committed by the Petitioner on his joining in Kanika Wildlife Range on 03.08.2013. Placing reliance on the provisions contained under Rule- 7(2)(b)(i)(ii) of the 1992 Rules, it is also the view of this Court that, no such proceeding can be initiated against the Petitioner under the aforesaid Rules, as the event has taken place more than four years prior to the date of retirement of the Petitioner and the institution of the proceeding. In any view of this Court, this Court is of the view that no proceeding can be initiated against the

// 7 //

Petitioner either under Rule-15 of the 1962 Rules or Rule- 7 of the 1992 Rules.

7.3. In view of the aforesaid analysis, this Court is inclined to quash the proceeding initiated against the Petitioner vide Memorandum dtd.25.02.2021 under Annexure-5 and so also the order dtd.29.03.2021 so passed by Opposite Party No.1 under Annexure-7. While quashing the proceeding under Annexure-5 and the impugned order under Annexure-7, this Court directs Opposite Party No.1 to release all the retiral benefits as due and admissible in favour of the Petitioner within a period of three (3) months from the date of receipt of this order. Failure to pay the retiral benefits within the aforesaid time period, will entail the Petitioner to claim the benefit of interest.

8. Accordingly, the Writ Petition stands disposed of.

(Biraja Prasanna Satapathy) Subrat

Judge Digitally Signed Signed by: SUBRAT KUMAR BARIK Reason: Authentication Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACK Date: 28-Aug-2026 16:53:50 Signature Not Verified