[Cites 0, Cited by 0]
Orissa High Court
Ratnakar Sethy vs State Of Odisha & Ors on 25 March, 2026
Author: Biraja Prasanna Satapathy
Bench: Biraja Prasanna Satapathy
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
W.P.(C) No.41382 of 2023
Ratnakar Sethy .... Petitioner
Mr. J. Mohanty, Advocate
-versus-
State of Odisha & Ors.
.... Opposite Parties
Mr. A. Tripathy, AGA
CORAM:
JUSTICE BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY
ORDER
25.03.2026
Order No.
06. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid
Arrangement (Virtual/Physical) Mode.
2. Heard learned counsel appearing for the Parties.
3. The present Writ Petition has been filed inter alia
with the following prayer:-
"Under the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the
case, it is therefore, prayed that this Hon'ble Court may
graciously be pleased to:
(i) quash the impugned Orders, dated 04.11.2022, dated
22.08.2023 and dated 01.12.2023 under Annexures-4,
5 and 6 respectively by concurrently holding the same is
bad, illegal and not sustainable in the eye of law;
(ii) pass such other order(s) or issue direction(s) as may
be deemed fit and proper in the bona fide interest of
justice;
// 2 //
And for which act of kindness, the Petitioner as in duty
bound, shall ever pray."
4. Learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner
contended that the impugned proceeding was initiated
vide Memorandum dtd.04.11.2022 under Annexure-4
under Rule-7 of the OCS (Pension) Rules, 1992 (in
short 'Rules'). The proceeding was initiated under
Rule-7 of the Rules by taking the Petitioner as a retired
employee as Petitioner by then had been given
premature retirement vide order dtd.15.03.2022 under
Annexure-1.
4.1. Learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner
contended that such order of premature retirement
given to the Petitioner and so issued vide office order
dtd.15.03.2022 under Annexure-1, was subject matter
of challenge before this Court in W.P.(C) No.12438 of
2022.
4.2. It is contended that the Writ Petition in W.P.(C)
No.12438 of 2022 was allowed with quashing of the
order dtd.15.03.2022 vide order dtd.25.11.2025.
4.3. It is contended that since the order of premature
retirement was quashed by this Court vide order dtd.
25.11.2025 in W.P.(C) No.12438 of 2022, the
proceeding initiated under Rule-7 of the Rules by
taking the Petitioner as a retired employee is no more
sustainable.
// 3 //
4.4. It is accordingly contended that initiation of the
impugned proceeding vide Memorandum
dtd.04.11.2022 under Rule-7 of the Rules and
consequential action taken in appointing the enquiry
office vide office order dtd.22.08.2023 under Annexure-
5 and notice by the enquiry officer to participate in the
enquiry vide notice on 01.12.2023 under Annexure-6
are no more sustainable in the eye of law.
4.5. It is further contended that because of the interim
order passed, no progress has been made to the
proceeding so initiated on 04.11.2022 under
Annexure-4.
5. Mr. A. Tripathy, learned Addl. Government
Advocate for the State basing on the instruction
contended that, since the order passed by this Court
on 25.11.2025 in W.P.(C) No.12438 of 2022 is under
challenge in a Writ Appeal vide Diary No.11988 of
2026, it cannot be held that Petitioner is not a retired
employee.
5.1. It is accordingly contended that the proceeding is
very much maintainable under Rule-7 of the Rules.
6. Having heard learned counsel appearing for the
Parties and considering the submissions made, this
Court finds that Petitioner after being given premature
retirement vide office order dtd.15.03.2022 under
Annexure-1 and by treating him to a retired employee,
// 4 //
the impugned proceeding in question was initiated vide
Memorandum dtd.04.11.2022 under Annexure-4. The
impugned proceeding was initiated under Rule-7 of the
Rules. In the said proceeding, Petitioner when was
issued with the notice to participate in the enquiry after
appointment of the enquiry officer vide office order
dtd.22.08.2023 and notice dtd.01.12.2023, Petitioner
challenging the same filed the present Writ Petition.
This Court while issuing notice of the matter passed an
interim order on dtd.20.12.2023, keeping in abeyance
the proceeding in question.
6.1. It is also found from the record that order of pre-
mature retirement dtd.15.03.2022 which was the
subject matter of challenge before this Court in W.P.(C)
No.12438 of 2022 was quashed vide order
dtd.25.11.2025. Since the order of premature
retirement has already been quashed by this Court vide
order dtd.25.11.2025, and Petitioner's date of
retirement falls on 30.09.2029, it cannot be held that
Petitioner is a retired employee anymore and
accordingly the proceeding under Rule-7 is no more
maintainable. Mere pendency of a Writ Appeal against
order dtd.25.11.2025, cannot be held that Petitioner is
a retired employee.
6.2. In view of the aforesaid analysis, this Court is of
the view that the impugned proceeding dtd.04.11.2022
under Annexure-4 so initiated under Rule-7 of the
// 5 //
Rules is no more sustainable in the eye of law. This
Court accordingly is inclined to quash the proceeding
initiated against the Petitioner vide Memorandum
dtd.04.11.2022 under Annexure-4 and consequential
action taken under Annexures-5 & 6. While quashing
the proceeding, this Court disposes of the Writ Petition
with an observation that such a proceeding can be
initiated under the provisions of OCS (CCA) Rules 1962
and by treating the Petitioner as an employee under the
Department.
7. Accordingly, the Writ Petition stands disposed of.
(Biraja Prasanna Satapathy)
Judge
Subrat
Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACK
