Sagarika Rout vs State Of Orissa & Others
2026 Latest Caselaw 2690 Ori

Orissa High Court

Sagarika Rout vs State Of Orissa & Others on 20 March, 2026

        THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

                         W.A. No.652 of 2021
(An application under Article-4 of the Orissa High Court Order, 1948 read
   with Clause-10 of the Letters Patent constituting the High Court of
  Judicature at Patna and Rule-6 of Chapter III of the Rules of the High
                          Court of Orissa, 1948)

Somanath Rout (dead)

1. Sagarika Rout,
  D/o. Late Somanath Rout

2. Smaranika Rout.
  D/o. Late Somanath Rout            .........                Appellants
                                   -Versus-

State of Orissa & others              ..........              Respondents

For the Appellants : Mr. Laxmikanta Mohanty, Advocate

For the Respondents : Mr. Jayanta Kumar Bal, Additional Government Advocate

CORAM:

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANASH RANJAN PATHAK AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SIBO SANKAR MISHRA

Date of Hearing: 18.03.2026 :: Date of Judgment: 20.03.2026

S.S. Mishra, J. The present Writ Appeal is directed against the order

dated 29.06.2021 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in

W.P.(C) No.18173 of 2021 directing the appellant to prefer an appeal

before the appellate authority ventilating his grievance.

2. Following conspectus of facts as borne out from the record is

recounted for the convenience of ready appreciation:

The appellant, while continuing as Senior Clerk in the Office of

the Respondent No.4-Accountant General, Odisha (A & E),

Bhubaneswar, was placed under suspension vide order dated

07.02.1994 issued by the District Education Officer, Bhadrak.

The departmental proceeding was initiated against the appellant

on 10.10.1996 and charge memo was issued alleging some financial

irregularities in the Office of the D.I. of Schools, Bhadrak. The

appellant filed his response by denying all the charges. Thereafter, the

appellant was reinstated in the service on 25.11.2003.

The departmental proceeding did not proceed further and in the

meantime, on 31.03.2006, the appellant demitted the office on

superannuation. After lapse of about six years on 29.10.2013, an

Enquiring Officer was appointed by the Respondent No.3 to further

continue the departmental proceeding initiated on 10.10.1996. The

Enquiring Officer submitted his report after completion of the enquiry

to the respondent no.3 on 29.01.2014, which was communicated to

the appellant on 18.02.2019.

Owing to the aforementioned departmental proceeding, the

appellant was deprived of his pensionary benefits, hence he

approached this Court by filing writ petition bearing W.P.(C)

No.22898 of 2020 with a prayer to quash the entire departmental

proceeding since the same suffered unexplained prolongation. The

learned Single Judge disposed of the writ petition vide order dated

07.10.2020, directing the respondent no.3 to finalise the proceeding

within eight weeks. Since the timeline was not followed by the

respondent no.3, another writ petition being W.P.(C) No.8722 of

2021, was filed. The learned Single Judge disposed of the matter vide

order dated 30.03.2021, directing that the proceeding be finalised

within one month, failing which the order shall be passed for

quashing of the entire departmental proceeding.

The appellant was noticed by the respondent no.3, to which he

replied on 03.05.2021. On the same day, i.e., on 03.05.2021, the

respondent no. 3 rejected the appellant's appeal and directed recovery

of Rs. 3,92,561/- from the appellant's pensionary benefits.

The said order of the respondent no.3 dated 03.05.2021 was

questioned by the appellant in W.P.(C) No.18173 of 2021. The

learned Single Judge vide order dated 29.06.2021 refused to entertain

the writ petition, rather directed the appellant to resort to the remedy

available under the Rules by filing appropriate appeal and liberty was

also granted to the appellant to raise all the issues before the appellate

authority.

3. Aggrieved by the aforementioned, the appellant has filed the

present intra-Court appeal. This court while issuing notice to the

respondents vide the order dated 28.02.2025 observed as under:

"It appears from the impugned order dated 29.06.2021 that the learned Single Judge after hearing the parties and going through the records and since both the parties admitted that being the disciplinary authority, the District Education Officer on the basis of the proceeding initiated against the petitioner under Rule 15 of the OCS (CC & A) Rules, 1962 passed the impugned order of punishment dated 03.05.2021 held that the order is an appealable one. Since, contention was raised by the learned counsel for the appellant during the hearing of the writ petition that after the retirement of the appellant, the OCS (CC & A) Rules, 1962 is not applicable, the learned Single Judge observed that the question of jurisdiction would also be considered by the appellate authority. Accordingly, the writ petition was disposed of permitting the petitioner to approach

the appellate authority raising all questions, which were raised in the writ petition before the appellate authority which was to be considered in accordance with law.

Learned counsel for the appellants drew the attention of this Court to the order no.3396 dated 23.04.2021 passed by the District Education Officer, Bhadrak wherein after careful consideration of the charges vis-a-vis the statement of defence and findings of the enquiry officer, the decision was taken to accept the findings of the enquiry officer and punishment was proposed in accordance with clause(i)(b) of sub-rule (10) of Rule 15 of CCS (CC & A) Rules, 1962 and the appellant was called upon to submit his representation against the proposed penalty.

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant submitted his representation before the District Education Officer, Bhadrak and the District Education Officer, Bhadrak vide order dated 03.05.2021 awarded penalty on the appellant which was challenged before the learned Single Judge in W.P.(C) No.18173 of 2021. The appellant was directed to deposit the misappropriated Govt. money of Rs.3,92,561/- (rupees three lakhs ninety two thousand five hundred sixty one), failing which the same was directed to be recovered from retiral benefits or by way of filing certificate case as per the provision of the Odisha Public Demands Recovery Act, 1962.

The contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is that in view of Rule 7 of the Orissa Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1992 (hereafter 1992 Rules), the Govt. reserve to themselves the right of ordering recovery of part of any pecuniary loss caused to the Govt., If In any departmental proceeding, the pensioner Is found guilty of grave misconduct during the period of his service.

He further submits that Rule 7 (2)(a) of 1992 Rules Indicates that when the departmental proceeding Is Instituted by an authority while the Govt. servant was In service, after retirement, the departmental proceeding would be deemed to be a proceeding under 1992 Rules and shall be continued and concluded by the authority and the authority shall submit a report recording Its findings to the Government and the Government Is the final authority to take the decision and the

Impugned order of punishment has been passed contrary to such provision of the 1992 Rules."

4. After notice, the respondents appeared and opposed the appeal

vehemently. Mr. Jayanta Kumar Bal, learned Additional Government

Advocate appearing for the State, submitted that the learned Single

Judge by the impugned order has kept it open for the appellant to

agitate all the issues as have been raised in the present proceeding

before the appellate authority. The order passed by the respondent

no.3 imposing penalty is, in fact, an appealable order under Rule-15

of the OCS (CC & A) Rules, 1962. If the order under challenge in the

writ petition was not sustainable in lieu of any of the provisions under

the Pension Rules, the same could also be urged before the appellate

authority, which is competent under the Rules to examine all the

issues appertaining to the dispute arising out of departmental

proceeding. That's precisely the view taken by the learned Single

Judge, which is not prejudicial to the petitioner in any manner

whatsoever. Therefore, there is no illegality or perversity in the order

of the learned Single Judge that may lead to the interference by this

court in the present appeal.

Since the entire case of the appellant revolves around Rule-7 of

the Orissa Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1992, it is appropriate to

reproduce Sub-rule (2)(a) of Rule 7, which reads as under:

"(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 re- employment, shall, after the final 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."

Proviso to sub-rule (2)(a) of Rule-7 provides that once a

delinquent officer demits the office after superannuation, it is only the

Government that is authorised under the rules to pass the order of

penalty in a departmental proceeding even initiated prior to the

retirement. Since under the rules, the Government reserves to itself

the right to pass the order of recovery being the culmination of the

departmental proceeding against the appellant after his retirement, the

order dated 03.05.2021 passed by the respondent no.3- District

Education Officer, Bhadrak, is not sustainable under law.

5. It is admitted on fact that the departmental proceeding was

initiated on 10.10.1996 and it continued even after the appellant was

superannuated on 31.03.2006. The Enquiring Officer was appointed

only in the year 2013, who had given the enquiry report in the year

2014. Therefore, under operation of the proviso to sub-rule (2)(a) of

Rule-7 of the Orissa Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1992, the enquiry

report should have been placed before the State Government and

appropriate order as desirable under law on the basis of such report

ought to have been passed by the competent authority under the State

Government. However, the respondent no.3 assumes such power

contrary to the mandate of Rule-7(2)(a) of the Orissa Pension Rules

and passed the order dated 03.05.2021. Since the very order under

challenge before the writ Court was perverse being vitiated under the

Rules, hence was contrary to the law, the learned Single Judge ought

not to have relegated the petitioner to resort to the remedy of appeal

provided under Rule-15 of the OCS (CC & A) Rules, 1962.

6. We are of the view that the learned Single Judge has committed

an error by ignoring the fact that the order under challenge before him

was illegal and contrary to the rules. Therefore, the same ought to

have been nullified instead of directing to file an appeal to perpetuate

further wrong. Hence, we have no hesitation to allow the Writ Appeal

by setting aside the primary impugned order No.3632, dated

03.05.2021, passed by the respondent no.3- District Education

Officer, Bhadrak. However, it is open for the respondents to place the

enquiry report dated 29.01.2014 before the Government as per the

proviso to Rule-7(2)(a) of the Orissa Civil Services (Pension) Rules,

1992 to obtain appropriate order in accordance with law.

7. We are not inclined to delve upon the issue of inordinate delay

in the conclusion of the departmental enquiry, which had stretched for

more than two decades, although the same has been highlighted by

the learned counsel for the appellant before us, as we found the

impugned order is unsustainable on singular count of vitiation Rule. It

is also open for the appellant to raise all those issues at the

appropriate stage. We have not expressed any opinion on the merits

of the case so far as the merits of the enquiry report on the strength of

which the penalty in the departmental proceeding has been inflicted

on the appellant.

8. Accordingly, the Writ Appeal succeeds to the extent alone. No

cost.

                                                                                     (Sibo Sankar Mishra)
                                                                                            Judge


                                M.R. Pathak, J.            I agree.

                                                                                     (Manash Ranjan Pathak)
                                                                                            Judge




                                The High Court of Orissa, Cuttack.

Dated the 20th Day of March, 2026/Subhasis Mohanty

Designation: Personal Assistant

Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack.