JUDGMENT :

D.P. Choudhury, J.

Challenge has been made to the order of punishment, the consequential inaction of opposite party for not fixing pension and release of arrear dues of the late husband of the petitioner along with family pension of the present petitioner.

FACTS

2. The unfolded story of the petitioner is that the husband of the petitioner was working as Junior Stenographer, Grade-III in the office of the opposite party since 1.1.1972. After establishment of Orissa State Road Transport Corporation (hereinafter called ‘the OSRTC’) in the year 1974 by the State Government, the service of the husband of the petitioner was transferred to the office of the General Manager, OSRTC, Cuttack and thereafter he was transferred to different offices of the OSRTC and finally retired from service on attaining the age of superannuation with effect from 28.2.2006. It is alleged, inter alia, that after the superannuation, the late husband of the petitioner was proceeded Departmentally for his unauthorized absence from 31.3.2004 to 1.4.2004, 3.4.2004 to 14.4.2004 and from 16.4.2004 till the date of his superannuation as his said conduct was allegedly in violation of Regulations 136 (18) and 110 (1)(2)(3) of the Orissa State Road Transport Corporation Employees (Classification, Recruitment and Condition of Service) Regulations, 1978. The petitioner was purportedly issued notice to explain about the allegation of unauthorized absence but that notice being not served sufficient, the Enquiring Officer proceeded with the enquiry and closed the enquiry by holding the husband of the petitioner guilty. After perusal of the enquiry report, the opposite party imposed punishment vide order dated 22.9.2007 by treating the period of unauthorized absence as “no work no pay” and calculated the pension as per the last pay drawn on 16.4.2004 but not from the date of his superannuation.

3. Be it stated that the petitioner was granted EOL for his absence from 12.9.1989 to 5.10.1989 and from 7.10.1989 to 29.10.1989 with a stipulation that the said period would not count for his future increment. Similarly, EOL for the period from 15.6.1992 to 11.8.1993 of the husband of the petitioner was granted with the stipulation that the same would not count towards his future increment. It is further stated that on 12.12.2011 the Administrative Department, i.e., Commerce & Transport Department of the State Government issued letter to the Accountant General, Odisha certifying that there has been no outstanding dues against the late husband of the petitioner towards House Building Advance/Motor Cycle Advance but there is outstanding of Rs.26,265/- to be adjusted against the gratuity. According to the petitioner when two letters of the Government showing no unauthorized absence and directed for regular pension and gratuity after deducting some outstanding balance, the petitioner’s claim should not stand on the way in reducing pension and family pension proportionately.

4. It is the further case of the petitioner that the Departmental proceeding being initiated after the retirement of her husband is illegal. The husband of the petitioner was not served with any notice in the enquiry and the Departmental Proceeding has been conducted ex parte by not affording natural justice to the husband of the petitioner. On the other hand, the punishment awarded in the Departmental proceeding after the retirement and the manner it was proceeded, same is illegal, improper and cannot stand on the way to award full pension to the husband of the petitioner in accordance with Orissa Civil Services (Pension) Rules. Be it stated that the petitioner purportedly made representation to the opposite party to recall the order of punishment and grant pension, gratuity in accordance with law but the opposite party is sitting tight over the matter since 11.2.2015 when petitioner made further repres