Disciplinary proceedings cannot continue after an employee's retirement in absence of explicit provisions allowing such continuation in service rules.

JUDGMENT :

V. Narasingh, J.

1. The petitioner working as Senior Sales Manager-cum-Godown Supervisor of the Opposite Party-Odisha State Civil Supplies Corporation Limited (herein after referred to as Corporation) retired on superannuation w.e.f. 30.11.2011 at Annexure-1.

2. Being aggrieved by the order dated 4.4.2015 at Annexure-7 directing for recovery of a sum of Rs.5,00,999/- towards alleged shortage value of misappropriation of quintal 311.11 Kgs.of sugar from his retirement benefits, the communication of the District Manager of the Corporation, Khordha inter alia directing for adjustment of Rs.19,89,633.07/- at Annexure-11, the office order dated 28.03.2019 at Annexure-18 directing to treat the period of suspension from 17.10.2003 to 29.05.2006 as such and the office order dated 09.05.2019 adjusting unutilized earned leave for a period of 300 days towards outstanding amount of Rs.22,16,560.00/- at Annexure-19, the present Writ Petition has been filed.

3. It is apt to state here that this is the 4th journey of the petitioner to this court.

A. In as much as: WP(C) No. 13103/2007 the petitioner challenged the recovery shown for an amount of Rs.19,89,633/- in the LPC without any prior notice. The said Writ Petition was disposed of on 05.03.2008 directing to consider the representation of the petitioner.

B. Petitioner challenged the order of punishment dtd.04.04.2015(Annexed as Annexure-7) in departmental proceeding on the ground that the proceedings cannot continue after retirement, in W.P.(C) No.8338 of 2015. This Court directed the petitioner to prefer appeal.

It is stated that the appeal so filed is still pending.

C. In WP(C) No.23819 of 2017 the petitioner sought a direction for payment of retirement benefits. This court at the stage of admission disposed of the said writ petition directing the Corporation to take a decision on the representation of the petitioner within a period of 6 weeks.

It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that no decision yet has been taken on such representation.

3A. It is further submitted that CONTC No. 1627/2018 was also disposed of at the instance of the petitioner directing the Corporation to take a final decision and comply the order within a period of 3 months.

4. It is stated that in spite of the orders of this court referred to herein above no decision has been taken either in respect of the representation or the appeal.

4A. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the Corporation Mr. Dhal that in view of the admitted pendency of the representation and appeal, this Court ought not to entertain this Writ Petition in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

4B. Per contra the learned counsel for the petitioner Mr. Mallik submits that pendency of the representation or the appeal should not stand in the way of this Court entertaining the present W.P.(C) since the impugned orders being patently illegal and dehors the Odisha State Civil Supplies Corporation Employees Service Rules, 1993 (herein after referred to as “Rules 93”).

5. It is the grievance of the petitioner that notwithstanding the glaring inaction of the Corporation as per order dated 09.05.2019 at Annexure-19 amount towards unutilised leave for a period of 300 days is directed to be adjusted towards an amount of alleged outstanding to the tune of Rs.22,16,560.00/-.

6. The principal ground of challenge is that the service