Orissa High Court
Achyutananda Pradhan vs State Of Odisha & Others .... Opposite ... on 20 March, 2025
Author: Biraja Prasanna Satapathy
Bench: Biraja Prasanna Satapathy
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
W.P.(C) No.1364 of 2025
In the matter of an application under Articles 226 and 227
of the Constitution of India.
..................
Achyutananda Pradhan .... Petitioner
-versus-
State of Odisha & Others .... Opposite Parties
For Petitioner : Mr. D.N. Rath, Advocate
For Opp. Parties : Mr. S.K. Jee, AGA
PRESENT:
THE HONBLE JUSTICE BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----
Date of Hearing:20.03.2025 and Date of Judgment:20.03.2025
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
---
Biraja Prasanna Satapathy, J.
1. Heard Mr. D.N. Rath, learned counsel for the
petitioner and Mr. S.K. Jee, learned Addl. Govt.
Advocate for the State.
// 2 //
2. Pursuant to the order dated 03.02.2025,
learned Addl. Govt. Advocate produced the
instruction provided by the BEO, Rairakhol vide
letter dated 04.03.2025. The same be kept in record.
3. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
4. The Petitioner has filed the present Writ Petition
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 or
any other appropriate writ, direction or order
by quashing the Memorandum dated
19.12.2024 issued by the Opposite Party
No.4 vide Annexure-12 to the writ petition.
And this Hon'ble Court be further
pleased to direct the Opp. Parties, more
particularly the opposite party no.4 to
release the final pension and other benefits
in favour of the petitioner forthwith pursuant
to the direction of the opposite party no.2
dated 23.11.2023, since the said benefit has
already been released in favour of other
similarly situated persons pursuant to the
direction of this Hon'ble Court in W.P.(C)
No.17412 of 2019 and batch of writ
petitions."
5. It is contended that petitioner was appointed
as a Non-formal Teacher vide order of appointment
issued on 09.02.1984 under Annexure-1 and
subsequently petitioner was absorbed as a Regular
// 3 //
Primary School Teacher in the year 1996 and
allowed to continue till he attained the age of
superannuation on 30.06.2023.
5.1. After his retirement, when Pension Papers
were submitted for the purpose of sanction of
Pension and other pensionary benefits in favour of
the petitioner, instead of releasing the same, the
impugned proceeding has been initiated vide
Memorandum dated 19.12.2024 under Annexure-
14 inter alia with the following charges:-
"That you had not acquired the CT/B.Ed.
qualification before 31.05.1996 pursuant to
Notification No.25630 dated 19.08.1996 and got
appointment for appointment as Regular Teacher
illegally."
5.2. Learned counsel for the petitioner placing
reliance on Rule-7(2)(b) of the OCS (Pension) Rules,
1992 (in short "Rules"), contended that the charge
is with regard to the allegation that the petitioner
had not acquired C.T./B.Ed. qualification before
31.05.1996 and got appointment as a Regular
Teacher, illegally.
// 4 //
5.3. It is contended that since the issue is in
respect of an incident of the year 1996 which is
more than 4 (four) years prior to initiation of the
proceeding, no such proceeding with the charges
could have been initiated against the petitioner in
view of the provision contained under Rule-7(2)(b)
of the Rules. Rule-7(2)(b) of the Rules reads as
follows:-
"(2) (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;."
5.4. In support of his aforesaid submission,
learned counsel for the petitioner also relied on a
decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Writ Petition
(Civil) No.1042 of 2021, in the case of Suchismita
Misra Vrs. High Court of Orissa and Others.
// 5 //
Hon'ble Apex Court in the said judgment dated
17.05.2023 has held as follows:-
"Admittedly, in the instant case, the petitioner
stood retired from service on 31.07.2021 and
chargesheet 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 chargesheet served on the
petitioner dated 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 chargesheet dated 11/16.10.2021
and other consequential departmental
proceedings initiated against the petitioner stand
quashed.
The petitioner is entitled to all terminal/retiral
benefits, if the same have been withheld because
of pendency of the departmental inquiry, along
with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from
the date it was withheld, until actually paid."
5.5. Placing reliance on the rules governing the
field and decision as cited (supra), it is contended
that the proceeding with the charges as indicated
hereinabove, is not maintainable against the
petitioner and just to harass the petitioner, the
said proceeding has been initiated. It is accordingly
contended that the proceeding initiated under
Annexure-14 is required to be quashed.
// 6 //
6. Learned Addl. Govt. Advocate basing on the
instruction on the other hand contended that since
petitioner got the benefit of appointment as a
Regular Primary School Teacher in the year 1996
without having acquired training qualification prior
to 31.05.1996, his very appointment was found to
be illegal and accordingly on being instructed by
the Govt., the proceeding was initiated by O.P.
No.4 vide Memorandum dated 19.12.2024 under
Annexure-14.
6.1. It is contended that since the petitioner was
not eligible to get the benefit of appointment as a
regular teacher in the year 1996, the proceeding
has been rightly initiated and it requires no
interference. It is also contended that petitioner
can very well raise all the legal points as available
to him by filing his written state of defence.
7. Having heard learned counsel for the parties
and considering the submissions made, this Court
finds that the petitioner was initially appointed as
// 7 //
a Non-formal Teacher vide order of appointment
issued on 09.02.1984 under Annexure-1 and
subsequently he was regularized as a Primary
School Teacher vide order dated 04.04.1998 under
Annexure-5. While so continuing, petitioner on
attaining the age of superannuation on
30.06.2023, was allowed to retire from Govt.
service.
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
// 8 //
19.12.2024 under Annexure-14. While quashing
the same, this Court allows the Writ Petition.
8. The Writ Petition accordingly stands disposed
of.
(Biraja Prasanna Satapathy)
Judge
Orissa High Court, Cuttack
Dated the 20th March, 2025/Basudev
Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack
