ORDER

12.08.2008 — Heard Mr. B. K. Kar, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the opp.parties.

The petitioner has filed this writ application with a prayer to quash the office order dated 22.7.2003 issued by the Division¬al Manager, Orissa Forest Development Corporation Ltd., Jeypore (C. KL) Division vide Annexure-2, initiating disciplinary pro¬ceeding against him on certain alleged irregularities committed while working in different posts in the Corporation. The disci¬plinary proceeding was initiated on 12.7.2003, after the peti¬tioner retired from service on attaining the age of superannua¬tion on 31.3.1999. The said disciplinary proceeding was started on 22.7.2003.

The undisputed facts are as follows :

(1) The petitioner is governed by “The Orissa Forest Corpo¬ration Service Rules, 1986”.

(2) No proceeding was initiated during the tenure of his service.

(3) The Rules 1986 underwent an amendment in the year 2004 (29.1.2004) incorporating a new Rule as Rule-123-A.

(4) There was no provision before the amendment of the said Rules for initiation of any disciplinary proceeding against the employees after their superannuation.

The provisions of Rule 123 are as follows :

“123. Authority to institute proceedings:

1. The Chairman/Managing Director or any other authority duly empowered by general or special order may :

(a) institute disciplinary proceedings against any employee/workman for specific lapses, dereliction of duties, misconduct, etc.

(b) direct the disciplinary authority to institute disciplinary proceedings against any employee/workman on whom that discipli¬nary authority is competent to impose any of the penalties under these Rules.

2. The disciplinary authority competent under these Rules to impose any of the minor penalties specified under Clauses (1) to (VI) of Rule-121 may initiate disciplinary proceedings against the employee/workman for the imposition of any of the major penalties specified in Clauses (VII to X) of Rule-121 notwith¬standing that such disciplinary authority is not competent under these Rules to impose any of the major penalties.”

With the aforesaid undisputed facts, the disciplinary pro¬ceeding is challenged in the writ application on the ground that there is no provision under the Rules to initiate departmental proceedings four years after the superannuation of the petition¬er. A prayer has been made to quash the same as the opp.parties have no jurisdiction to initiate such a proceeding.

A counter affidavit has been filed on 27.09.2004 indicating therein that on 29.01.2004 the Corporation incorporated and adopted a new Rule being Rule 123-A in OFC Service Rules, 1986 which empowers and authorizes the authority to initiate and continue proceedings after superannuation/retirement/termination of service. The writ application was filed in the year 2004.

It is worthwhile to mention here that a new provision, i.e., Rule 123-A has been incorporated in the Rule, which reads as follows:

“Authority to initiate and continue proceedings after super¬annuation/retirement/termination of service.

1. (a) Competent disciplinary authority as enumerated in Rule 123 may institute disciplinary proceedings against any employee after superannuation for his misconduct and for whole or part of any pecuniary loss caused to the Corporation if he is found prima facie responsible for such misconduct or negligence in duty during the period of his service including the service rendered on re-employment after retirement.

Such departmental proceedings shall be deemed to be proceed¬ing under this Rule and shall be continued and concluded by the authority by which they were commenced in the same manner as if the Corporation employees had continued in service.

Such departmental proceedings referred to above if not instituted while the employees was in service, whether before his retirement or during his re-employment.

(iii) shall not be instituted save with sanction of Board of Directors, if the C.M.D. is the discip