[Cites 4, Cited by 0]
Orissa High Court
Banshidhar Pradhan vs State Of Odisha &Ors. ..... Opposite ... on 1 December, 2025
Author: Biraja Prasanna Satapathy
Bench: Biraja Prasanna Satapathy
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
WP(C) No.33065 of 2025
Banshidhar Pradhan ..... Petitioner
Mr. S. Mallik, Advocate
-versus-
State of Odisha &Ors. ..... Opposite Parties
Mr. S. Das, ASC
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY
ORDER
01.12.2025
Order No.01
1. This matter is taken up through hybrid mode.
2. Heard Mr. S. Mallik, learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner
and Mr. S. Das, 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 aforesaid facts and circumstance the
petitioner humbly prays that this Hon'ble court may
graciously be pleased to:
i. Quash the order dt.03.10.2025 as at Annexure 2 with a
concurrent direction to reconsider implosion of lesser
penalty taking into consideration the gravity of
misconduct.
ii. And to pass such other order(s) / direction(s) as may
be deemed fit and proper in the interest of justice.
And for this act of kindness the petitioner as on duty
bound ever pray."
4. It is contended that after his retirement Petitioner was not
sanctioned with the pension, save and except the provisional pension
on the ground of pendency of a vigilance proceeding in VGR Case
No. 4/2007 in the file of learned Addl. District Judge-cum-Special
Judge (Vigilance), Dhenkanal.
4.1. It is contended that Petitioner when was convicted in the said
vigilance proceeding vide Judgment dtd.16.12.2023 under
Annexure-1, without issuing a show-cause, the impugned order has
been passed on 03.10.2025 under Annexure-2, directing for
stoppage of pension and gratuity in full and permanently and the
period of suspension has been treated as such.
4.2. Learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner contended that
since prior to passing of such order, Petitioner has not been provided
with the show-cause in terms of the provisions contained under Rule
6 of OCS (Pension) Rules, 1992 (in short Rules), such an order
could not have been passed. It is further contended that period of
suspension could not have been treated as such in exercise of power
conferred under Rule 7 of the Rules.
4.3. It is further contended that even though Petitioner challenging
such order of conviction and sentence has already moved this Court
by filing Criminal Appeal No. 1389 of 2023 and Petitioner has been
allowed to go on bail, during pendency of the appeal, which is in the
nature of continuation of the proceeding, Petitioner could not have
been imposed with the punishment vide the impugned order under
Annexure-2. It is accordingly contended that the impugned order is
not sustainable in the eye of law and requires interference of this
Court with adjudication.
5. Mr. S. Das, learned Addl. Standing Counsel on the other hand
basing on the available materials contended that since Petitioner has
been convicted in the vigilance proceeding vide Judgment
dtd.16.12.2023 under Annexure-1. In view of the provisions
contained under Rule 6 r.w. Rule 7 of the OCS (Pension) Rules,
1992, Petitioner forfeits all his right to get the pensionary benefits
unless and until that order of conviction and sentence is set aside by
appropriate Court. Rule 6 & 7 of the Rules reads as follows:-
"6. Pension Subject to Future Good Conduct- (1) Future good
conduct shall be an implied condition of every grant of pension
and its continuance under these rules.
(2) The pension sanctioning authority may by order in writing,
withhold or withdraw a pension or part thereof, whether
permanently or for a specified period, if the pensioner is
convicted of a serious crime or is found guilty of grave
misconduct; Provided that no such order shall be passed by an
authority subordinate to the authority competent to make an
appointment to the post held by the pensioner immediately before
his retirement from service: Provided further that where a part of
pension is withheld or withdrawn, the amount of such pension
shall not be reduced below the amount of minimum limit.
(3) Where a pensioner is convicted of a serious crime by a Court
of Law, action under sub-rule (1) shall be taken in the light of the
judgment of the Court relating to such conviction. (4) In a case
not falling under sub-rule (3), if the authority referred to in sub-
rule (2), considers that the pensioner is prima facie guilty of
grave misconduct, it shall before passing an order under such
rule (2)-
(a) Serve upon the pensioner a notice specifying the action
proposed to be taken against him and the ground on which it is
proposed to be taken and calling upon him to submit, within
fifteen days of the receipt of the notice or such further time as may
be allowed by the pension sanctioning authority, such
representation as he may wish to make against the proposal; and
(b) take into consideration the representation, if any, submitted
by the pensioner under Clause (3).
(5) Where the authority competent to pass an order under sub-
rule (2) is the Government, the Odisha Public Service
Commission shall be consulted before the order is passed.
(6) An appeal against an order under sub-rule (2), passed by any
authority other than the Governor shall lie to the Governor and
the Governor shall, in consultation with the Odisha Public
Service Commission, pass such orders on the appeal as he deems
fit.
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 re-employment 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) (a) Such departmental proceedings referred to in sub-rule
(1), if instituted while the Government servant was in service,
whether before his retirement or during his reemployment, shall,
after the final retirement of the Government servant, be deemed to
be a proceedings under this rule and shall be continued and
concluded by the authority by which they were commenced in the
same manner as if the Government servant had continued in
service:
Provided that when the departmental proceedings are
instituted by an authority, subordinate to Government that
authority shall submit a report recording its findings to the
Government.
(b) such departmental proceedings as referred to in sub-rule
(1) if not instituted while the Government servant was in service,
whether before his retirement or during his reemployment-
(i) shall not be instituted save with the sanction of
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;
(c) [deleted] Vide Finance Department Notification
No.33464/F., dtd.04.08.2006
(d) In the case of Government servant who has retired on
attaining the age of superannuation or otherwise and against
whom any departmental or judicial proceedings are instituted or
where departmental proceeding are instituted or where
departmental proceedings are continued under clauses (a) and
(b), a provisional pension as provided in rule 66 shall be
sanctioned.
(e) Where the Government decide not to withhold or withdraw
pension but order recovery of pecuniary loss from pension, the
recovery shall not ordinarily be made at a rate exceeding one-
third of the pension admissible on the date of retirement of a
Government servant."
5.1. Placing reliance on the aforesaid provision contained under rule
6 r.w. Rule 7 of the Rules, it is contended that the impugned order
has been passed under Annexure-2 taking recourse to the provision
contained under Rule 6(1) & (2) of the Rules, as the Petitioner has
been convicted and sentenced for the offence under Sec.13(2) r.w.
13(1)(d) and 7 of the P.C. Act and Sec. 120-B of the I.P.C..
5.2. It is also contended that if on the ground of grave misconduct
such an order would have been passed, Petitioner would have been
issued with a show-cause. Since the impugned order has been
passed after the Petitioner was convicted and sentenced for the
aforesaid offence, which are serious in nature, no wrong has been
committed by the Opp. Party No. 1 in passing the order under
Annexure-2.
5.3. It is also contended that Petitioner though has challenged the
order of conviction and sentence by filing an appeal before this
Court in CRLA No. 1389 of 2023, but this Court while admitting the
appeal since has not stayed the order of conviction and sentence, no
illegality or irregularity can be found with the impugned order.
6. Having heard learned counsel appearing for the Parties,
considering the submissions made and the fact that Petitioner has
been convicted in the vigilance proceeding vide Judgment
dtd.16.12.2023 under Annexure-1 and this Court while admitting the
appeal in CRLA No. 1389 of 2023 has not stayed the said order of
conviction and sentence, this Court finds no illegality or irregularity
with the impugned order dtd.03.10.2025 so issued under Annexure-
2 and is not inclined to interfere with the same.
6.1. It is also the view of this Court that Petitioner since has been
convicted and sentenced for the offence under Sec. 13(2) r.w.
13(1)(d) & Sec. 7 of P.C. Act and Sec. 120-B of IPC, there was no
requirement to issue a show-cause prior to passing of the impugned
order. However, it is observed that such withdrawal of the benefit
vide the impugned order shall be subject to final outcome of the
CRLA No. 1389 of 2023. If the Petitioner is ultimately acquitted in
the said vigilance proceeding, Petitioner can reiterate his claim to
get the benefits.
7. With the aforesaid liberty and observation, the writ petition stands
disposed of.
(BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY)
Judge
Sneha
Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack
