Narasingha Sahu vs State Of Odisha And Others .... Opposite ...
2025 Latest Caselaw 10892 Ori

Orissa High Court

Narasingha Sahu vs State Of Odisha And Others .... Opposite ... on 10 December, 2025

Author: Biraja Prasanna Satapathy

Bench: Biraja Prasanna Satapathy

   IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

                    W.P.(C) No.32321 of 2024

  In the matter of an application under Articles 226 & 227 of
the Constitution of India.
                                   ..................

 Narasingha Sahu                            ....                     Petitioner

                                    -versus-

 State of Odisha and Others                 ....            Opposite Parties


                  For Petitioner           : Mr. B. Mohanty, Advocate

          For Opp. Parties           :      Mr. S.P. Das, AGA



PRESENT:

     THE HONBLE JUSTICE BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Date of Hearing:10.12.2025 and Date of Judgment:10.12.2025
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

   Biraja Prasanna Satapathy, J.

1. Heard Mr. B. Mohanty, learned counsel for the

petitioner and Mr. S.P. Das, learned Addl. Standing

Counsel for the State.

2. The present Writ Petition has been filed inter alia

challenging order dated 29.11.2024, so issued by Opp.

Party No.2 under Annexure-13. Vide the said order, while // 2 //

disposing the proceeding, Opp. Party No.2 being the

disciplinary authority, passed the order of punishment by

directing recovery of a sum of Rs.6,51,039.13/- along with

simple interest @ 18%.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the

proceeding in question was initiated vide Memorandum

dated 04.11.1994 under Annexure-2. Initially without

supplying the enquiry report, when the proceeding was

disposed of, with passing of an order of punishment, the

matter was carried to this Court in W.P.C(OAC) No.1852 of

2009. The said Writ Petition was disposed of by this Court

on 06.03.2023 inter alia considering the submission of the

learned Addl. Govt. Advocate that, the order of punishment

has been passed without supplying copy of the Enquiry

Report.

3.1. Accordingly, basing on such submission made by the

learned Addl. Govt. Advocate, while quashing the order of

punishment so passed, this Court directed O.P. No.2 to

dispose of the proceeding in accordance with law. It is

contended that by the time such an order was passed by

this Court, petitioner had already retired from service on

attaining the age of superannuation on 30.04.2017.

// 3 //

3.2. It is contended that since the proceeding could not be

disposed of prior to retirement of the petitioner, the

proceeding should have been disposed of in accordance

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

Rules) and such order of punishment can only be passed by

the Govt.-O.P. No.1. But on the face of the order passed by

this Court on 06.03.2023 under Annexure-4, Opp. Party

No.2 without taking step to convert the proceeding to a

Rule-7 proceeding, passed an order of punishment vide the

impugned order dated 29.11.2024 under Annexure-13 and

that too in terms of the provisions contained under Rule-15

of the OCS(CCA) Rules, 1962. Rule-7 of the Rules reads as

follows:-

"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.

// 4 //

(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 //

3.3. It is contended that since petitioner during pendency

of the proceeding retired on 30.04.2017, the proceeding

could not have been disposed of in terms of the provision

contained under Rule-15 of the OCS(CCA) Rules, 1962 and

instead the same should have been disposed of in terms of

the provision contained under Rule-7 of the Rules. Since

the statutory provision was never followed, the impugned

order is not sustainable in the eye of law and requires

interference of this Court.

3.4. It is also contended that petitioner is suffering from

cancer and on the face of his retirement on 30.04.2017

because of the pendency of the proceeding, petitioner has

not yet got his retiral benefits save and except, provisional

pension. It is also contended that initially the proceeding

though was initiated with regard to mis-utilisation of a sum

of Rs.2,64,264.66/- by the petitioner, but in the impugned

order, the amount has been enhanced to Rs.6,51,039.13/-

and that too along with interest @ 18%, which is not at all

permissible.

4. Learned Addl. Standing Counsel on the other hand

while supporting the impugned order, made his submission

basing on the stand taken in the counter affidavit so filed

// 6 //

by Opp. Party Nos.1 and 2. It is contended that pursuant to

the earlier order passed by this Court in W.P.C(OAC)

No.1852 of 2009, after causing de-novo enquiry with

submission of the report on 07.03.2024, petitioner after

being issued with the 1st show-cause along with the

Enquiry Report, the proceeding was disposed of vide the

impugned order dated 29.11.2024 under Annexure-13.

Stand taken in Para-12 and 17 of the counter affidavit

reads as follows:-

"12. That, in reply to the averments made in paragraph No.10 of the Writ Petition, it is humbly submitted that, it is a fact that, a re-inquiry order was issued to the Inquiring Officer vide Letter No.950 dtd.05.02.2024 of the Disciplinary Authority and the Inquiry Officer was directed to cause detailed inquiry and submit a comprehensive inquiry report with supporting documents. After completion of enquiry the enquiring Officer vide letter No. 707 dtd. 7.3.2024 submitted the enquiry report to the Director of Industry, Odisha, Cuttack.

Further it is humbly submitted that after getting enquiry report a show cause notice has been issued to the petitioner on 13.3.2024 requesting him to submit representation, if he so wished against the findings within a period of 15 days. Thereafter the petitioner on 29.3.2024 submitted his reply to the show cause notice. After getting all the reports from the inquiring officer, the Disciplinary Authority concluded the Departmental Proceeding vide order No. 9526/lnd dtd.29.11.2024 stating therein that the Delinquent Officer is guilty of Mis-appropriation of Government money and therefore, impose the recovery order of principal of Rs. 6,5 1,039.13 (Rupees six lakhs fifty one thousand thirty nine and thirteen paisa) of misappropriated Government money from the pensionary benefit of the Delinquent Officer along with simple interest at

// 7 //

the rate of 18% per annum as per the Odisha Cooperative Societies Act, 1962. Hence, is no fault in doing so, as the Disciplinary Authority reserves his right to that as per OCS (CCA) Rules, 1962.

xxxx xxxx xxxx

17. That, in reply to the averments made in paragraph-I5 of the Writ Petition, it is humbly submitted that, by initiating the Departmental Proceeding under Rule-l5 of OCS (CCA) Rules, 1962, the Disciplinary Authority has made no mistake as Government Rules, recommends that, any financial irregularities/ recovery is to be made from a Govt. servant only after it is established through a comprehensive departmental inquiry."

4.1. It is accordingly contended that since in terms of

the earlier order, the proceeding was disposed of with

passing of the impugned order, no illegality or

irregularity can be found with the same.

5. To the stand taken in the counter, learned counsel

for the petitioner made further submission basing on the

available materials, contending inter alia that after de-

novo enquiry with submission of the Enquiry Report on

07.03.2024 under Annexure-9, petitioner though was

issued with the 1st show-cause, but no 2nd show-cause

was ever issued proposing the punishment.

5.1. In absence of issuance of the 2nd show-cause,

which is a mandatory requirement under Rule-

15(10)(i)(b) of the OCS(CCA) Rules, 1962, the proceeding

// 8 //

was disposed of vide the impugned order and that too

without converting the same to a Rule-7 of the

proceeding. Rule-15(10)(i)(b) of the Rules reads as

follows:-

"(b) On receipt of the representation referred to in Sub-

clause (a) the disciplinary authority having regard to the findings on the charges, is of the opinion that any of the penalties specified in Clauses (vi) to (ix) of Rule 13 should be imposed, he shall furnish to the delinquent Government servant a statement of its findings along with brief reasons for disagreement, if any, with the findings of the inquiring officer and give him a notice by Registered post or otherwise stating the penalty proposed to be imposed on him and calling upon him to submit within a specified time such representation as he may wish to make against the proposed penalty:"

5.2. It is also contended that after remand of the matter

even though fresh enquiry was directed to be conducted

vide letter dated 18.10.2023 under Annexure-6 and

report was submitted on 10.11.2023 under Annexure-7,

but disciplinary authority-O.P. No.2 when directed for

de-novo enquiry, another enquiry report was submitted

on 07.03.2024 under Annexure-9, without causing any

further enquiry and by giving opportunity of hearing to

the petitioner to participate in the same.

5.3. It is accordingly contended that the finding of the

enquiry officer in his report under Annexure-9, is also

not sustainable in the eye of law.

// 9 //

6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and

considering the submissions made, this Court finds that

petitioner while in service, a proceeding in question was

initiated vide Memorandum dated 04.11.1994 under

Annexure-2. In the said proceeding, when punishment

was imposed without following the statutory provision as

contained under Rule-15, the same was assailed before

the Tribunal in O.A. No.1852(C) of 2009. Subsequently,

the matter on being transferred to this Court, was

disposed of vide order dated 06.03.2023 under

Annexure-4. Vide the said order, while quashing the

impugned order of punishment so imposed, the

disciplinary authority was directed to dispose of the

proceeding in accordance with law. As further found,

after such remand of the matter, fresh enquiry was

conducted with submission of a report on 10.11.2023

under Annexure-7. But without accepting the report, de-

novo enquiry was conducted with submission of a report

on dated 07.03.2024 under Annexure-9.

6.1. After receipt of the Enquiry report dated

07.03.2024 under Annexure-9, petitioner was issued

with the 1st show-cause vide notice dated 13.03.2024

// 10 //

under Annexure-10. However, without issuing the 2nd

show-cause which is a mandatory requirement, order of

punishment was passed vide the impugned order dated

29.11.2024 under Annexure-13. It is also found that the

proceeding has been disposed of in terms of the

provisions contained under Rule-15 of the OCS(CCA)

Rules, 1962.

6.2. Since during pendency of the proceeding, petitioner

retired on attaining the age of superannuation on

30.04.2017, in terms of the earlier order passed by this

Court in W.P.C(OAC) No.1852 of 2009, the proceeding

should have been disposed of in accordance with the

provisions contained under Rule-7 of the OCS(Pension)

Rules, 1992 and such order of punishment could have

been passed by the Govt.-Opp. Party No.1 only.

6.3. Since in terms of the earlier order, the proceeding

was never converted to a Rule-7 proceeding and disposed

of in accordance with law and that too without issuing

the 2nd show-cause, this Court considering the stand

taken in the Writ Petition, is inclined to quash order

dated 29.11.2024 so issued under Annexure-13. While

quashing the said order, this Court remits the matter to

// 11 //

O.P. No.1 to take-up of the proceeding from the stage of

enquiry and dispose of the proceeding in accordance with

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

6.4. Since the proceeding is of the year 1994, this Court

directs O.P. No.1 to dispose of the proceeding as

expeditiously as possible preferably by the end of April,

2026. If the proceeding will not be disposed of with the

aforesaid time period, the proceeding be treated as

dropped.

7. The Writ Petition stands disposed of with the

aforesaid observation and direction.

(Biraja Prasanna Satapathy) Judge

Orissa High Court, Cuttack Dated the 10th December, 2025/Basudev

Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack