Pitabash Hansdah vs State Of Odisha
2023 Latest Caselaw 11822 Ori

                  IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

                                   W.P.(C) No.28890 of 2022

                 Pitabash Hansdah                       ....             Petitioner
                                                       Mr. R.N. Parija, Advocate

                                            -versus-

                 State of Odisha                        ....            Opp. Party
                                                             Mr. P.C. Das, A.S.C.

                                          CORAM:

                            JUSTICE A.K. MOHAPATRA
                                        ORDER

Order No.                              29.09.2023

    04.     1.      This matter is taken up through Video Conferencing mode.

2. Heard Mr. R.N. Parija, learned counsel appearing for the

Petitioner as well as Mr. P.C. Das, learned Additional Standing

Counsel appearing for the State-Opposite Party. Perused the writ

petition as well as the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the State-

Opposite Party.

3. The preset writ petition has been filed by the Petitioner with

the following prayers:-

"The petitioner, therefore, prays that Your Lordship would be graciously pleased to admit the case, call for the records and after hearing the parties allow the same, issue writ/writs in nature of mandamus/certiorari and/or any other/further writ/direction quashing the Disciplinary Proceeding vide No.WR-CON-CASEDP-0019-2022/381/WR(C), dated 19.05.2022 under Annexue-1, which has been // 2 //

initiated belatedly after 18 years and after the retirement of petitioner.

And/or any other/further direction/directions as deemed fit and proper to the facts and circumstances as deemed fit and proper to the facts and circumstances of the case."

4. Learned counsel for the Petitioner, at the outset, submitted that

the proceeding which was initiated against the Petitioner after his

retirement from service bearing D.P. No.381 dated 19.05.2022,

which was initiated almost 18 years after the incident had taken

place. He further submitted that in view of the provision contained in

Rule-7 of the OCS (Pension) Rules, 1992, a proceeding can only be

initiated within 4 years from the date of occurrence of the alleged

offence.

5. In the aforesaid context, learned counsel for the Petitioner

referred to the judgment of this Court in Akshaya Kumar Sahu v.

State of Odisha (W.P.(C) No.27396 of 2022, decided on

24.03.2023). Further, referring to the aforesaid judgment in Akshaya

Kumar Sahu's case (supra), learned counsel for the Petitioner

submitted that in an identical case, this Court by referring to Rule-7

of the OCS (Pension) Rules, 1992 was pleased to hold that the

departmental proceeding could not have been initiated under Rule-7

of the OCS (Pension) Rules, 1992 and, accordingly, the proceeding

was quashed.

// 3 //

6. Learned Additional Standing Counsel appearing for the State-

Opposite Party, on the other hand, submitted that a disciplinary

proceeding was no doubt initiated after retirement of the Petitioner

from service, however, such a proceeding was initiated on the basis

of the audit objection and such audit objection came to the

knowledge of the Opposite Party recently, although the audit

objection pertains to the year 2008. Accordingly, it is submitted by

the learned Additional Standing Counsel that the Opposite Party has

not committed any illegality in initiating the Departmental

Proceeding against the Petitioner. Therefore, the writ petition is

devoid of merit and, as such, the same be dismissed.

7. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the respective

parties and on a careful conspectus of their submissions made by the

learned counsel for the parties and also on a careful scrutiny of the

materials on record, by applying the law laid down by this Court in

Akshaya Kumar Sahu's case (supra), this Court is of the view that the

audit report basing on which the proceeding was initiated in the year

2022. Therefore, the same is beyond the four years period as has been

prescribed under Rule-7 of the Odisha Pension Rules, 1992. In such

view of the matter, there is no dispute that the present proceeding has

been initiated beyond four years time stipulation under Rule-7 of the

Odisha Pension Rules, 1992. Accordingly, in view of the bar // 4 //

contained in Rule-7 of the OCS (Pension) Rules, 1992, the

departmental proceeding initiated against the Petitioner after his

retirement from service is not maintainable in the eye of law.

8. In such view of the matter, this Court has no hesitation to

quash the Departmental Proceeding initiated against the Petitioner.

Accordingly, the same is hereby quashed. However, the Opposite

Party is directed to proceed further and calculate the benefits which

are payable to the Petitioner in accordance with law within a period

of two months from the date of communication of a certified copy of

this order.

9. With the aforesaid observation and direction, the writ petition

is disposed of.

( A.K. Mohapatra) Judge Debasis

Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: DEBASIS AECH Designation: Secretary Reason: Authentication Location: OHC, CUTTACK Date: 04-Oct-2023 19:09:47