Orissa High Court
Pralov Parija vs State Of Odisha And Others ... Opposite ... on 16 April, 2025
Author: Aditya Kumar Mohapatra
Bench: Aditya Kumar Mohapatra
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
W.P.(C) No.15567 of 2024
In the matter of the application under Articles 226 and 227 of the
Constitution of India.
Pralov Parija ... Petitioner
- Versus -
State of Odisha and others ... Opposite Parties
Advocate(s) appeared in this case:-
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
For Petitioner ... Mr. Rudra Narayan Parija
For Opposite Parties ... Mr. M.R. Patra,
Additional Standing Counsel
(For O.P. No.1)
Mr. Braja Kishore Sahoo,
Advocate.
(For O.P. No.3)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE SHRI JUSTICE ADITYA KUMAR MOHAPATRA
Date of hearing- 10.04.2025 :: Date of judgment : 16.04.2025
Aditya Kumar Mohapatra, J.
1. Heard the learned counsel for the Petitioner as well as the
learned counsel for the Opposite Party No.3-Orissa State Ware
Housing Corporation. Perused the pleadings of the respective
parties as well as the documents annexed thereto. Counter
affidavit filed by the Opposite Party No.3-Corporation in Court
today is taken on record.
2. By filing the present writ petition, the Petitioner seeks to
challenge the order of rejection dated 07.12.2023 passed by the
Opposite Party No.2-Managing Director, Odisha State Ware
Housing Corporation, Bhubaneswar as well as the order dated
01.03.2023 passed by the Opposite Party No.3-Secretary, Odisha
State Warehousing Corporation, Bhubaneswar thereby
withholding the retirement dues of the Petitioner to the tune of
Rs.25,29,028.00 under Annexure-2 and for a further direction to
the Opposite Parties to release such amount in favour of the
Petitioner forthwith.
3. The case of the Petitioner, as has been pleaded in the writ
petition, is that originally the Petitioner entered into the service in
the year 1995 and joined as Assistant Superintendent under
Opposite Party No.2-Corporation. Thereafter, on attaining the
age of superannuation the Petitioner has retired from service
w.e.f. 31.07.2022. Several months after the retirement of the
Petitioner from service, the Opposite Party-Corporation issued a
notice of show cause to the Petitioner under Annexure-4 to the
writ petition on 03.02.2023. The Petitioner filed his reply
promptly on 07.02.2023. Despite the reply of the Petitioner, the
Opposite Parties, denying all the allegations, have withheld the
C.P.F. dues of the Petitioner to the tune ofRs.25,29,028.00 vide
order dated 01.03.2023.
4. Being aggrieved by such conduct of the Opposite Parties,
the Petitioner approached this Court by filing W.P.(C) No.30257
of 2023. This Court, vide order dated 04.10.2023, disposed of
the said writ petition by granting liberty to the Petitioner to
approach the Opposite Party No.2 by filing a detailed
representation with a corresponding direction to the Opposite
Party No.2 to consider the same in accordance with law and to
dispose of the same within a stipulated period of time. Further,
while disposing of the previous writ petition, this Court has also
observed that in the event the Opposite Party No.2 found that no
inquiry or proceeding has been initiated against the Petitioner and
in the absence of any other legal impediment, the Opposite Party
No.2 shall take steps to disburse the retiral dues of the Petitioner
as expeditiously as possible. After disposal of the writ petition,
the Petitioner approached the Opposite Parties by filing a
representation on 12.10.2023 under Annexure-9 to the writ
petition.
5. Learned counsel for the Opposite Party-Orissa State Ware
Housing Corporation, at this juncture, contended that the
representation of the Petitioner was considered pursuant to the
order passed by this Court on 04.10.2023 in the earlier writ
petition. He further contended that by passing a speaking and
reasoned order, the representation of the Petitioner has been
disposed of vide order dated 07.12.2023 under Annexure-1 to the
writ petition. Learned counsel for the Opposite Party-
Corporation further contended that since the Corporation has
suffered a loss which very well relates to the period during which
the Petitioner was In-Charge of Store, as such the loss amount is
to be recovered from the Petitioner since the job of safe keeping
of the stored items in the warehouse was the responsibility of the
Petitioner.
6. Learned counsel for the Opposite Party No.3 further
contended that initially an opportunity was provided to the
Petitioner to file his reply by issuing show cause notice to the
Petitioner and it is only after considering such reply, a decision
has been taken to withhold the retiral dues of the Petitioner to the
tune as has been indicated hereinabove. He further contended
that the aforesaid facts are evident from the order dated
07.12.2023 which has been filed as Annexure-1. In such view of
the matter, learned counsel for the Opposite Party-Corporation
contended that the Opposite Party-Corporation have not
committed any illegality in rejecting the representation of the
Petitioner.
7. In reply to the aforesaid contention of the learned counsel
appearing for the Opposite Party-Corporation, learned counsel
for the Petitioner emphatically argued that before issuing an
order of recovery, the Opposite Parties have not conducted any
proceeding. He further submitted that a show cause notice was
issued to the Petitioner after several months of his retirement.
Therefore, the fact that no proceeding was pending at the time of
retirement of the Petitioner from service is not disputed by
anybody. Learned counsel for the Petitioner further contended
that no disciplinary/departmental proceeding could have been
initiated against the Petitioner after his retirement from service.
8. In the aforesaid context, learned counsel for the Petitioner
referred to the judgment of this Court in Shyama Sundar Sahoo
v. Odisha State Warehousing Corporation and another
(W.P.(C) No.21066 of 2024 decided on 06.03.2025) and
submitted before this Court that in respect of the very same
Corporation and involving an identical issue, this Court has
already taken a view that no proceeding can be initiated after
retirement of the employee, as the same is not permissible in the
relevant service rules. In paragraph-21 of the aforesaid
judgment, it has been held that:
"In view of the aforesaid finding that no
Disciplinary Proceeding was initiated against the
Petitioner either while he was in service or after his
retirement, this Court has no hesitation to hold that no
such proceeding could have been initiated against the
Petitioner as the Regulation, 1985 does not permit
initiation of any such proceeding against an employee
after his retirement. Thus, this Court holds that no
proceeding whatsoever has been initiated against the
Petitioner before imposing a major penalty in shape of
Regulation 18(1)(iv). Moreover, no penalty under
Regulation -18 can be imposed without initiating a
proceeding for imposition of a major penalty.
Therefore, the impugned order dated 21.08.2023
under Annexure-6 is completely without jurisdiction
and the same is liable to be quashed. Accordingly, the
same is hereby quashed."
Therefore, referring to the aforesaid judgment, the learned
counsel for the Petitioner contended that the conduct of the
Opposite Parties in withholding the retiral dues of the Petitioner
to the tune as has been indicated hereinabove is illegal and
arbitrary and not in conformity with the relevant service rules.
9. Learned counsel for the Petitioner further referred to a
decision of this Court in the matter of Satyanarayan Sahu v.
State of Odisha and others (W.P.(C) No.4141 of 2016 decided
on 15.12.2022. On perusal of the said judgment, it appears that
the dispute involved in the said case is somewhat similar to the
facts involved in the present writ petition. In the aforesaid writ
petition, the very same Corporation, as in the present matter, was
the Opposite Party in the said case. In SatyanarayanSahu's case
(supra), the dispute was regarding illegal withholding of retiral
dues to the tune of Rs.14,59,116/- by the Opposite Party-
Corporation. The coordinate Bench of this Court, vide judgment
dated 15.12.2022, after analyzing the facts and legal position in
detail, allowed the writ petition and the impugned
communication dated 10.04.2014 was quashed and Opposite
Parties were directed to release the retiral dues of the Petitioner
within a period of four weeks along with the interest @ 10%
from the date it became due till the date of actual payment.
10. Having heard the learned counsels appearing for the
respective parties and on a careful analysis of the factual
background of the present case, this Court is of the view that in
the present writ petition, the issue that is required to be
adjudicated by this Court is as to whether the conduct of the
Opposite Parties in withholding a sum of Rs.25,29,028.00 is
supported by any statutory sanction? Admittedly, as has been
argued by the learned counsels appearing for the parties, there is
no dispute that the shows cause notice was issued to the
Petitioner after his retirement from service. Thus, there is no
doubt in coming to a conclusion that at the time of retirement, no
proceeding whatsoever was pending against the present
Petitioner.
11. Moreover, in view of the judgment of this Court referred to
hereinabove, no proceeding is initiated against the Petitioner after
his retirement from service. It is also settled position of law that
without initiating a proceeding against the present Petitioner the
Opposite Party-Corporation could not have withheld the amount
as is due and admissible to the Petitioner on his retirement since
such a conduct would be absolutely illegal and void. Moreover,
on a careful scrutiny of the office order dated 07.12.2023, this
Court observes that the justification/reasoning that has been
given for withholding the retirement benefit of the Petitioner is
not convincing and that on the basis of such reasoning, it cannot
be said that the Petitioner is responsible for the loss, if any,
sustained by the Corporation. At least there is no such finding
which is of binding nature that the Petitioner is to be blamed for
such loss sustained by the Corporation.
12. In view of the aforesaid analysis of facts as well as the legal
position, this Court is of the view that the order dated 07.12.2023
under Annexure-1 is unsustainable in law. Similarly, the conduct
of the Opposite Parties in withholding the dues of the Petitioner
is absolutely illegal as the same does not adhere to the
established principle of service jurisprudence.
13. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances, this Court has no
hesitation in quashing the impugned order dated 07.12.2023
under Annexure-1. Accordingly, the same is hereby quashed.
Further, the Opposite Parties are directed to sanction and disburse
the retiral dues of the Petitioner as is due and admissible to him
within a period of six weeks from the date of communication of a
certified copy of this judgment along with 6% interest thereon
from the date it became due till the date of actual payment.
14. Accordingly, the writ petition stands allowed. However,
there shall be no order as to costs.
(AdityaKumarMohapatra)
Judge
Orissa High Court, Cuttack
th
The 16 April, 2025/Debasis Aech, Secretary
Digitally Signed
Signed by: DEBASIS AECH
Reason: Authentication
Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT
Date: 16-Apr-2025 12:05:53
