Departmental proceedings against a retired employee cannot be initiated for events occurring more than four years prior, as established by Rule 7 of the Orissa Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1992.

JUDGMENT :

S.K. Panigrahi, J.

1. The Petitioner has filed this Writ Petition challenging the legality of the departmental proceeding initiated against him after this retirement through Memorandum No.1956 dated 21.02.2024. He claims the proceeding violates Rule 7 of the Orissa Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1992.

I. FACTUAL MATRIX OF THE CASE

2. The brief facts of the case are as follows:

(i) The petitioner, while in service, was implicated in Cuttack Vigilance P.S. Case No. 25 dated 13.04.2010 under Sections 13 (2)/13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, read with Section 420 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code. The case pertains to allegations of illegal utilization of seized vehicles for transporting iron ore fines in violation of Section 17 (2) of the Orissa Motor Vehicles Taxation (OMVT) Act, 1975.

(ii) The petitioner retired on 31.10.2022. Four days before his retirement, on 26.10.2022, the Superintendent of Police (Vigilance Cell, Cuttack) submitted a draft memorandum of charges against him. Accordingly, the transport commissioner received the said draft memorandum on 16.11.2022 and forwarded it to the Department.

(iii) The disciplinary proceeding was initiated by Memorandum No. 1956 dated 21.02.2024 with government sanction under Rule 7 of the Orissa Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1992.

(iv) The petitioner was accused of gross misconduct, dereliction of duty, failure to maintain integrity, and violation of the OMVT Act, 1975. Allegations include misuse of his position as a public servant, which, according to the opposite parties, amounts to grave moral turpitude.

(v) The petitioner was asked to submit a written statement of defense within 30 days of receiving the memorandum. Failing to do so, an inquiry officer was appointed on 04.09.2024 to investigate the charges under Rule 15(4) of the Orissa Civil Services (Classification, Control, and Appeal) Rules, 1962.

(vi) The Department contends that the four-year limitation should be counted from 16.11.2022, the date when the allegations were brought to their attention. The disciplinary proceeding was thus initiated within the permissible time limit after retirement.

(vii) The petitioner is also facing criminal prosecution in TR No. 53/2015, pending before the Special Judge, Vigilance, Cuttack. Cognizance of the offense was taken by the trial court on 06.11.2015.

II. SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER

3. Learned counsel for the Petitioner earnestly made the following submissions in support of his contentions:

(i) Rule 7 (b)(ii) explicitly prohibits the initiation of departmental proceedings against a retired employee for events that occurred more than four years prior.Since the alleged misconduct took place in January 2010 and the proceedings were initiated in February 2024, which is statutorily embargoed for proceedings.

(ii) The alleged incident dated back 14 years ago, rendering it impractical and unjust to proceed with the inquiry as evidence and witness reliability may have significantly deteriorated and might have list its integrity.

(iii) The petitioner relies on the ruling in Suchismita Mishra v. High Court of Orissa and Others , where similar proceedings were quashed for breaching Rule 7 of the OCS (Pension) Rules, 1992. The principle of law established in this case mandates adherence to the statutory limitations.

(iv) Since the