Retired employees cannot be penalized with recovery from retiral dues without prior disciplinary proceedings being initiated during service, upholding procedural compliance under relevant regulations.

JUDGMENT :

A.K. Mohapatra, J.

1. By filing the present Writ Petition, the present Petitioner seeks to invoke the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to quash the Office order dated 21.08.2023 under Annexure-6 to the Writ Petition passed by the Managing Director, Odisha State Warehousing Corporation, Opposite Party No.2. By virtue of the impugned order dated 21.08.2023 the Opposite Party no.2 seeks to recover an amount of Rs.10,91,452/- along with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the Petitioner without initiating any Disciplinary Proceeding against the Petitioner, who had already retired from service by the time the aforesaid order dated 21.08.2023 was passed directing recovery of the aforesaid amount.

2. The factual background leading to filing of the present Writ Petition, in short, is that the Petitioner was initially appointed as Work Sarkar on 18.01.1985 by the Opposite Party No.1-Corporation. During his service career, the Petitioner was given promotion to the post of Assistant Superintendent, Deputy Superintendent and Superintendent. After serving for about 38 years in different capacities in the Corporation, the Petitioner finally retired from service on attaining the age of superannuation with effect from 31.03.2023.

3. The pleadings further reveal that while the Petitioner was working as Zonal Manager (I/C) of the Corporation he received a show cause notice dated 05.12.2022 to explain as to why a sum of Rs.27,28,630/- shall not be recovered from him. The aforesaid show cause was received on the basis of a verification conducted by the Food Corporation of India (FCI) at Jagatpur Warehoue of the Corporation during January, 2022 and February, 2022. During such verification, it was found that the physical stock did not tally with the stock recorded in the Register. As such, there was a shortfall in the physical stock that was verified in the godown.

4. In reply to the aforesaid show cause notice, the Petitioner submitted his explanation on 17.12.2022. In his explanation the Petitioner has mentioned that during the aforesaid period, the Warehouse at Jagatpur received an abnormally high number of rakes and due to shortage of staff, the Petitioner was required to handle the whole thing alone. Despite repeated requests, no man power was provided to the Petitioner. Further, it has been categorically stated by the Petitioner in his reply that there is no shortage of stock inasmuch as the total quantity of all the stacks has been tallied with the register. It has been specifically mentioned that the FCI team verified only a selected stock wherein there was some shortage. However, at the same time other stocks were not taken into consideration where the stock was not recorded. As such it has been stated by the Petitioner that there is no shortage of stock and that the show cause notice to recover the amount is totally misconceived and bad in law.

5. After the Petitioner submitted his reply, no action was taken therein till his retirement. The Petitioner retired from service on attaining the age of superannuation with effect from 31.03.2023. Four months after his retirement, the Petitioner received a notice dated 20.07.2023 to show cause as to why a sum of Rs.10,91,452/- shall not be recovered from his retiral dues as F.C.I. has recovered an amount of Rs.27,28,630/- from the bill of Opposite Party No1-Corporation. Since the Petition