Barun Kumar Majhi vs State Of Odisha & Ors. .... Opposite ...
2026 Latest Caselaw 1604 Ori

Orissa High Court

Barun Kumar Majhi vs State Of Odisha & Ors. .... Opposite ... on 20 February, 2026

Author: Biraja Prasanna Satapathy

Bench: Biraja Prasanna Satapathy

               IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

                                  W.P.(C) No.3491 of 2024

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

        Barun Kumar Majhi                            ....               Petitioner

                                                 -versus-

        State of Odisha & Ors.                       ....              Opposite Parties


       For Petitioner         :       Mr. R.N. Parija, Advocate


       For Opp. Parties :             Mr. A. Tripathy, AGA
                                      Mr. P.K. Mohanty, Sr. Advocate
                                            along with
                                      Ms. K.T. Mudali, Advocate
                                        (Opp. Party No. 2)

PRESENT:

   THE HON'BLE JUSTICE BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY

   ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Date of Hearing: 20.02.2026 and Date of Judgment: 20.02.2026
   ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

   Biraja Prasanna Satapathy, J.

1. This matter is taken up through hybrid mode.

2. Heard Mr. R.N. Parija, learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner,

Mr. A. Tripathy, learned Addl. Govt. Advocate appearing for the // 2 //

State-Opp. Party and Mr. P.K. Mohanty, learned Sr. Counsel

appearing for the Opp. Party No. 2 along with Ms. K.T. Mudali,

learned counsel.

3. The present writ petition has been filed inter alia with the following

prayer:-

"The petitioner, therefore, pray that Your Lordship would be graciously pleased to admit the case call for the records and after hearing the parties allow the same, issue writ in nature of mandamus/certiorari and/or any other/further writ/direction quashing Annexure-1 & 11 and be further pleased to direct release the entire retirement benefits of the petitioner such as gratuity, leave salary, CPF, Pensional benefit as 3 months' salary, revised arrear D.A incentives etc with interest @ 12% p.a within a short stipulated.

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

4. It is contended that in the proceeding initiated against the Petitioner

vide memorandum dtd.09.12.2015 under Annexure-3, Petitioner was

imposed with the punishment vide order dtd.01.06.2017 under

Annexure-5. Vide the said order, Petitioner was held liable to pay

back the storage loss in terms of the charge framed under Annexure-3

to the tune of Rs.1,86,727.37/-.

// 3 //

4.1. It is contended that on the face of the order passed under

Annexure-5, which was never assailed, Petitioner after his retirement

on 30.09.2021 when was not released with his retiral benefits, he

approached this Court by filing W.P.(C) No. 33950 of 2023 with the

following prayer:-

"Considering the submission made by the learned counsel for the Petitioner, this Court deems it proper to dispose of the writ application by granting liberty to Petitioner to approach the Opposite Party No.2 by filing a fresh representation taking therein all the grounds along with all supporting documents within a period of three weeks from today. In the event, such a representation is filed, the Opposite Party No.2 shall do well to consider the same, in the event, if there is no other legal Impediment, the Opposite Party No.2 shall do well to deduct the amount of loss sustained i.e. Rs.1,86,727/- and release the balance amount of retiral benefits in favour of the Petitioner as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of six weeks. Failing which the Opposite Parties shall pay interest @ of 12% to the petitioner till the actual payment is made to the Petitioner.

With the aforesaid observation/directions, the writ application stands disposed of."

4.2. Learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner contended that even

though the proceeding was initiated with the allegation that Petitioner

is liable to pay back storage loss to the tune of Rs.1,86,727.37/- and

// 4 //

such an order was passed against him vide order under Annexure-5,

but pursuant to the earlier order of this Court, while rejecting the

Petitioner's claim so far as release of his retiral benefits is concerned,

Petitioner has been saddled with a sum of Rs.78,58,938/-, basing on a

joint enquiry report made on 31.10.2022 under Annexure-11.

4.3. Learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner contended that since

no such proceeding was ever initiated with regard to the alleged

storage loss of Rs.78,58,938/-, basing on an enquiry report prepared

much after the retirement of the Petitioner on 31.10.2022 under

Annexure-11, Petitioner could not have been held liable to pay back

the said amount while rejecting his claim for pension vide the

impugned order dtd.07.12.2023 under Annexure-1.

4.4. It is further contended that since with regard to the alleged loss to

the tune of Rs.78,58,938/-, no proceeding was ever initiated as against

the Petitioner while in service, no such proceeding can also be

initiated after the retirement of the Petitioner in view of the decision of

this Court reported in 2014 117 CLT 531. This Court in the said order

in Para 5 has held as follows:-

"Law is, therefore, well settled that in the absence of any specific rule it would not be permissible

// 5 //

to continue the disciplinary proceeding even if initiated during the period of service of an employee after his superannuation and on that ground, payment of the retiral benefits to the superannuated employee cannot be withheld on the ground that if found guilty, money is to be recovered from him."

4.5. It is accordingly contended that with quashing of the impugned

order, Opp. Party-Corporation be directed to release the retiral

benefits of the Petitioner by recovering a sum of Rs.1,86,727.37/-.

5. Mr. P.K. Mohanty, learned Sr. Counsel appearing for the

Corporation on the other hand made his submission basing on the

stand taken in the counter affidavit so filed. Though it is not disputed

that the proceeding in question was initiated against the Petitioner

under Annexure-3 by indicating the loss towards storage at

Rs.1,86,727.37/- and Petitioner after being found guilty, was imposed

with the said punishment for recovery vide order dtd.01.06.2017 under

Annexure-5, but after his retirement from service on 30.09.2021,

when a joint enquiry was made, it was found that Petitioner is

involved with storage loss of Rs.78,58,938/-. Basing on such report of

the Committee held on 31.10.2022 under Annexure-11, Petitioner's

claim for release of his retiral benefits was rejected vide the impugned

order dtd.07.12.2023 and Petitioner was held liable to pay storage loss

// 6 //

of Rs.78,58,938/- in place of Rs.1,86,727.37/-, which was the charge

in the proceeding. It is accordingly contended that on the face of the

liability fixed, Petitioner is not entitled to get his terminal benefits and

the same has been rightly rejected vide the impugned order.

6. Having heard learned counsel appearing for the Parties and

considering the submission made, this Court finds that Petitioner

while in service, the proceeding in question was initiated against him

vide memorandum dtd.09.12.2015 under Annexure-3. In the said

proceeding the charge was with regard to storage loss for an amount

of Rs.1,86,727.37/-.

6.1. In the said proceeding Petitioner after being held guilty of the

charges, was imposed with the punishment vide order dtd.01.06.2017

under Annexure-5. Vide the said order, recovery was directed to be

made towards storage loss, which was the charge in the proceeding.

On the face of such order passed under Annexure-5, after his

retirement on 30.09.2021, Petitioner when was not released with his

retiral benefits by recovering the storage loss of Rs.1,86,727.37/-, he

approached this Court by filing W.P.(C) No. 33950 of 2023.

// 7 //

6.2. This Court vide order dtd.16.10.2023 when directed the Opp.

Party-Corporation to consider the Petitioner's grievance while

rejecting the same vide the impugned order dtd.07.12.2023 under

Annexure-1, Petitioner has been held liable to pay storage loss of

Rs.78,58,938/- basing on the enquiry report available under

Annexure-11 so prepared on 31.10.2022.

6.3. Placing reliance on the decision of this Court reported in 2014

117 CLT 531, this Court is of the view that basing on the enquiry

report under Annexure-11, Petitioner cannot be saddled with any

further loss of storage. Since no such proceeding was ever initiated

during the service career of the Petitioner for the alleged loss of

Rs.78,58,938/-, basing on the enquiry report available under

Annexure-11, Petitioner's claim could not have been rejected and with

a further direction to recover the said loss from the Petitioner.

6.4. In view of the aforesaid analysis, this Court while quashing the

order dtd.07.12.2023, directs the Opp. Party-Corporation to release the

retiral benefits of the Petitioner as due and admissible by recovering a

sum of Rs.1,86,727.37/-. It is also the view of this Court that since

Petitioner has already retired on 30.09.2021, in view of the decision of

// 8 //

this Court as cited (supra), no proceeding can be initiated at present

for any further acts of omission and commission.

7. The writ petition accordingly stands disposed of with the aforesaid

observation and direction.

(BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY) JUDGE Orissa High Court, Cuttack Dated the 20th February, 2026/Sneha

Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack