Ramesh Chandra Das vs State Of Odisha & Others .... Opp. ...
2025 Latest Caselaw 10766 Ori

Orissa High Court

Ramesh Chandra Das vs State Of Odisha & Others .... Opp. ... on 8 December, 2025

Author: Biraja Prasanna Satapathy

Bench: Biraja Prasanna Satapathy

  IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

               W.P.(C) No.33662 of 2025

 In the matter of an application under Article 226 & 227 of
 the Constitution of India, 1950.
                                 ..................


Ramesh Chandra Das                     ....                   Petitioner

                                 -versus-


State of Odisha & Others               ....               Opp. Parties




      For Petitioners             : Mr. D.N. Rath, Advocate

      For Opp. Parties            : Mr. C.K. Pradhan,
                                    Addl. Standing Counsel


PRESENT:


THE HONBLE JUSTICE BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY

 Date of Hearing: 08.12.2025 and Date of Judgment: 08.12.2025
 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 Biraja Prasanna Satapathy, J.

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

2. Heard learned counsel appearing for the Parties.

// 2 //

3. The present Writ Petition has been filed inter alia with the following prayer:-

"Under the above circumstance, it is therefore humbly prayed that this Hon'ble Court may be graciously pleased to issue a writ in the nature of writ of mandamus any other appropriate writ, direction or order by quashing the so called memorandum dated 10.10.2025 issued by the opposite party no.4 under Annexure-16 to the writ petition, in view of the law decided by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the Suchismita Mishra (supra) and of this Hon'ble case of Court in the case of Achyutananda Pradhan (supra).

And this Hon'ble Court be further pleased to direct the opposite parties to release the pension and other retiral dues of the petitioner forthwith. since in the meantime more than two years have passed from the date of retirement of the petitioner and the petitioner has not yet received any pension and retiral dues in spite of the direction of this Hon'ble Court under Annexure-13 to the writ petition.

And this Hon'ble Court be pleased to further order/ orders, direction/pass any directions as this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.

And for this act of kindness, as in duty bound, the petitioner shall ever pray."

4. It is contended that Petitioner entered into service on 23.06.1989 and while so continuing, he retired from service on attaining the age of superannuation on 31.05.2024. After such retirement of the Petitioner on 31.05.2024, when the retiral dues of the Petitioner was not released, he approached this Court by filing W.P.(C) No.27681 of 2025. Basing on the instruction provided by the Department vide letter dtd.10.10.2025 that no proceeding has been initiated against the Petitioner nor

// 3 //

any proceeding is pending, the writ petition in question was disposed of vide order dtd.13.10.2025 under Annexure-14 with a direction on the Opposite Parties to sanction and disburse the pensionary benefits as due and admissible to the Petitioner.

4.1. Learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner contended that even though instruction was provided to this Court that no proceeding is pending against the Petitioner and accordingly this Court disposed of the writ petition vide order dtd.13.10.2025 with a direction on the Opposite Parties to pay the pension and other pensionary benefits, but the impugned proceeding was initiated vide Memorandum dtd.10.10.2025 under Annexure-16, in order to frustrate the order passed by this Court on 13.10.2025 and the earlier instruction provided to this Court vide letter dtd.10.10.2025.

4.2. A further submission is also made that the proceeding in question since has been initiated with regard to an incident of the year 1989, when the Petitioner joined in his service, the said proceeding is also not permissible in the eye of law in view of the provisions contained under Rule-7(2)(b)(ii) of the OCS (Pension) Rules, 1992. Rule-7(2)(b) of the Rules reads as follows:-

"(2) (a) Such departmental proceedings referred in sub- rule (1) if instituted while the Government servant was in service, whether before his retirement or during his re- employment, shall, after the final

// 4 //

retirement of the Government servant, be deemed to be a proceeding 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 finding 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 re- employment -

(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".

4.3. It is contended that the impugned proceeding has been initiated with the charge that Petitioner at the time of his appointment in the year 1989 had submitted a forged document.

4.4. It is contended that since Petitioner joined in the year 1989 and retired on 31.05.2024, with regard to an incident of the year 1989, the proceeding vide Memorandum dtd.10.10.2025, cannot be initiated in view of the provisions contained under Rule-7(2)(b)(ii) of the

// 5 //

Rules. Articles of charges framed in the impugned proceeding reads as follows:-

"Articles of Charges Annexure-1

Sri Ramesh Chandra Das, Ex-Attendant (Retired), L.A.C, Kodabaruan, Dist.-Bhardrak has committed the following irregularities.

That, the details of allegations are set forth in the statement of imputations of misconduct in support of charges as enclosed in Annexure-11.

Thus, the following article of charges is framed against him for violation of the Orissa Government Servant's Conduct Rules-1959.

1. Production of Forged document at the time of his appointment

2. Keeping the Authorities in dark and concealment of material facts".

4.5. In support of his submission that the proceeding is not maintainable, reliance was placed to a decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Suchismita Misra vs. High Court of Orissa & Ors. and order passed by this Court on 20.03.2025 in the case of Achyutananda Pradhan vs. State of Odisha & Ors. Hon'ble Apex Court in the above noted case has held as follows:-

"Admittedly, in the instant case, the petitioner stood retired from service on 31.07.2021 and charge sheet was served on 11/16.10.2021 and this is for the period when the petitioner served as a Registrar from 28.06.2012 to 03.10.2015, and that it is indisputedly beyond the period of four years of such institution".

In the given facts and circumstances, in our considered view, the charge sheet served on the petitioner dated

// 6 //

11/16.10.2021 is in clear breach of the mandate of Rule 7 of Rules, 1992.

Consequently, the writ petition succeeds and is allowed. The charge sheet dated 11/16.10.2021 and other consequential departmental proceedings initiated against the petitioner stand quashed".

4.6. This Court in the case of Achyutananda Pradhan in Para-7.1 has held as follows:-

"7.1. The proceeding in question vide Memorandum dated 19.12.2024 under Annexure-14 has been initiated by O.P. No.4 in respect of an incident of the year 1996. Placing reliance on the provisions contained under Rule- 7(2) of the Rules and the decisions as cited (supra), it is the view of this Court that in respect of such an incident of the year 1996, the proceeding could not have been initiated after more than 28 years. Therefore, this Court is inclined to quash the proceeding initiated against the petitioner vide Memorandum dated 19.12.2024 under Annexure-14. While quashing the same, this Court allows the Writ Petition."

4.7. Placing reliance on the aforesaid two decisions and the provisions contained under Rule-7(2)(b)(ii) of the Rules, it is contended that the proceeding is not maintainable in the eye of law.

5. Mr. C.K. Pradhan, learned Addl. Government Advocate on instruction contended that basing on the wrong instruction provided to this Court by the Department in its letter dtd.10.10.2025, the order dtd.13.10.2025 was passed in W.P.(C) No.27681 of 2025. In fact by the time the instruction was so provided on 10.10.2025, the impugned proceeding in question had

// 7 //

already been initiated vide Memorandum dtd.10.10.2025 under Annexure-16.

5.1. It is accordingly contended that since basing on the wrong instruction provided on 10.10.2025, the earlier writ petition disposed of vide order dtd.13.10.2025 under Annexure-13 and by that time, the proceeding had already been initiated, challenge made to the proceeding is not at all entertainable.

5.2. It is accordingly contended that Petitioner be directed to participate in the proceeding and for disposal of the same in accordance with law.

6. Having heard learned counsel appearing for the Parties and considering the submissions made, it is found that Petitioner entered into service on 23.06.1989 and while continuing as such he retired from service on attaining the age of superannuation on 31.05.2024. After such retirement from service when his pension and pensionary benefits were not released, Petitioner approached this Court by filing W.P.(C) No.27681 of 2025.

6.1. Basing on the instruction provided to the learned Addl. Government Advocate vide letter No.8130 dtd.10.10.2025 that no proceeding is pending against the Petitioner, W.P.(C) No.27681 of 2025 was disposed of vide order dtd.13.10.2025 under Annexure-13 and with a direction on the Opposite Parties to release the pension

// 8 //

and other pensionary benefits as due and admissible to the Petitioner.

6.2. However, on the face of such instruction and disposal of the Writ Petition vide order dtd.13.10.2025, the impugned proceeding was served on the Petitioner vide letter No.8123 dtd.10.10.2025 under Annexure-16. Since vide letter No.8130 dtd.10.10.2025 instruction was provided that no proceeding is pending against the Petitioner, the impugned proceeding could not have been served on the Petitioner vide letter No.8123 dtd.10.10.2025. By the time letter No.8130 dtd. 10.10.2025 was issued, letter No.8123 dtd.10.10.2025 was available with the authority-Opposite Party No.4.

6.3. Even while accepting the contention of the learned State Counsel that wrong instruction was provided to this Court vide letter No.8130 dtd.10.10.2025 by Opposite Party No.4 and accordingly W.P.(C) No.27681 of 2025 was disposed of, it is the view of this Court that the impugned proceeding dtd.10.10.2025 since has been initiated in respect of an incident of the year 1989, the same is not maintainable in view of the provisions contained under Rule-7(2)(b)(ii) of the Rules.

6.4. Placing reliance on the decisions as cited (supra) and the provisions contained under Rule-7(2)(b)(ii) of the Rules, it is the view of this Court that the impugned

// 9 //

proceeding dtd.10.10.2025 under Annexure-16 is not sustainable in the eye of law.

6.5. In that view of the matter, this Court is inclined to quash the impugned proceeding initiated vide Memorandum dtd.10.10.2025 under Annexure-16. While quashing the proceeding dtd.10.10.2025, this Court allows the Writ Petition.

7. Accordingly, the Writ Petition stands disposed of.

(Biraja Prasanna Satapathy) Judge

Orissa High Court, Cuttack Dated the 8th December, 2025/Subrat

Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACK