The tribunal exceeded its jurisdiction by failing to address the limitation issue regarding the challenge to the punishment order, as over eight years had elapsed since its issuance, affirming that pensionary benefits are a continuing cause of action.

JUDGMENT :

B.R. SARANGI, J.

The State and its functionaries have filed this writ petition challenging the order dated 27.10.2016 passed by the Odisha Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, Bhubaneswar in O.A. No. 1605 of 2015 quashing the punishment order dated 07.04.2007 and directed the petitioners to prepare the pension papers of the deceased Govt. employee in accordance with the relevant rules and draw and disburse such pension and other pre-retiral dues admissible to the applicant/legal heirs of the deceased Govt. employee within a period of four months from the date of receipt of the order.

2. The factual matrix of the case, in brief, is that the husband of opposite party no.1 (Akrura Charan Rout), while working as a Senior Assistant in the office of petitioner no.2-Director of Health Services, was placed under suspension on 19.11.1986 and retired from service on 30.11.1997 while under suspension. A disciplinary proceeding was initiated on 26.08.1989 against him on various grounds including misappropriation of Government cash, forging records and not making over cash entrusted to him etc. in August, 1991. The said proceeding continued without being finalized even after retirement of the deceased Government employee and concluded on 07.04.2007 awarding penalty of recovery of Rs.3,56,185/- from the DCRG, pension and T.I. of the Government employee. Accordingly, certificate case was directed in case further amount remained to be recovered and the period of suspension from 19.11.1986 to 30.11.1997 is to be treated as such. Therefore, the opposite party no.1 approached the tribunal by filing O.A. No. 1605 of 2015 raising objection that the order of penalty has been imposed by the incompetent authority and after retirement of the Government employee. Therefore, the proceeding has to be converted to action under Rule-7 of the OCS (Pension) Rules, 1992, which provides that the Government have reserved to themselves the right of withholding pension or gratuity or both either in full or in part. Thereby, petitioner no.2 has no competence to pass an order for recovery of the amount. Further, the Orissa Public Service Commission has not been consulted before passing such order which is statutory requirement of the aforesaid rules. Furthermore, for the selfsame issue a criminal case was registered against the Government employee, which was ended in acquittal on 07.01.2010 and in view of such acquittal, the findings of the enquiring officer in a disciplinary proceeding cannot be relied upon to award penalty. After due adjudication, the tribunal allowed the original application filed by the opposite party no.1 by quashing the order of punishment imposed against the deceased Government servant and directed the State-petitioners to pay the legitimate claim. Hence, this application.

3. Mr. A.K. Mishra, learned Addl. Government Advocate appearing for the State-petitioners contended that the petitioners, being the respondents before the tribunal, had raised preliminary objection with regard to maintainability of the original application, as the same was filed beyond the limitation period prescribed and specifically pleaded that the husband of the opposite party no.1 was communicated with the order dated 07.04.2007 with regard to punishment imposed on him by registered post with A.D. But on receipt of the same, the husband of the opposite party no.1 never preferred any appeal and he died on 11.02.2011. It is contended that neither the delinquent official nor after his death, his legal representatives have preferred any appeal against the order of punishment. But, O.A. No. 1605 of 2015 was filed on 22.06.2015, after long lapse of