Departmental proceedings against a retired employee cannot be initiated more than four years after the relevant event, as per Rule 7(2)(b)(ii) of OCS (Pension) Rules, 1992.

JUDGMENT :

A.K. Mohapatra, J.

1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual /Physical Mode).

2. Heard learned counsel for the Petitioner as well as the learned Additional Government Advocate. Perused the pleadings of the respective parties as well as the materials placed before this Court for consideration.

3. The present Writ Petition has been filed by the Petitioner with a prayer to quash the Departmental Proceeding vide Memorandum No.375/WR(C) dated 19.05.2022 under Annexure-2 and order vide No.366/WR© dated 19.05.2022 under Annexure-3.

4. The factual background of the present case, in nutshell, is that while the Petitioner was working as Executive Engineer (M.I.) D & Q.C., Northern Minor Irrigation Circle, Sambalpur, has retired from Government service on attaining the age of superannuation on 3108.2017. No criminal or departmental proceeding was pending against the Petitioner at the time of his retirement from service. Accordingly, his retirement benefits were duly sanctioned and disbursed in favour of the Petitioner. However, five years after his retirement, when the Petitioner is leading a peaceful retired life and when the employer and employee relationship has ceased to exist with effect from 31.08.2017, a Departmental Proceeding has been initiated against the Petitioner on the basis of an audit report relating to a period which is four years prior to the institution of the proceeding. Accordingly, the Petitioner has approached this Court by filing the present Writ Petition for quashing the aforesaid Departmental Proceeding bearing Memorandum No.375/WR(C) dated 19.05.2022 and for quashing the order No.366/WR(C) dated 19.05.2022 granting sanction for initiation of such a Departmental Proceeding against the Petitioner in respect of an event which took place during the year 2011-12 to 2015-16.

5. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the Petitioner that the Petitioner has retired from service with effect from 31.08.2017 on attaining the age of superannuation. He further contended that the authorities allowed the Petitioner to retire peacefully and he was paid all his retiral dues after his retirement. Since no criminal or departmental proceeding was pending against the Petitioner on the date when the Petitioner has attained the age of superannuation, all financial benefits were sanctioned and disbursed in favour of the Petitioner without any legal hurdles.

6. He further contended that recently the Opposite Party has initiated a proceeding against the Petitioner. The said proceeding is based on an audit report which was prepared during the year 2018-19 and the finding of the audit came to the notice of Disciplinary Authority on 07.01.2022, The charges in the memorandum relates to the period from 2011-12 to 2015-16. Therefore, learned counsel for the Petitioner referring to the provisions of Rule 7(2)(b)(ii) of OCS (Pension) Rule, 1992 submitted that there is a clear bar in law to initiate such a proceeding after retirement of the Government employee and after cessation of the employer and employee relationship that too in respect of a period which is beyond four years from the date of institution of such proceeding. In such view of the matter, learned counsel for the Petitioner submitted that the proceeding initiated against the Petitioner is not maintainable in law and accordingly, the same should be quashed.

7. Learned counsel for the Petitioner referring to the provisions contained in Rule 7(2)(b)(ii) of OCSW (Pension) Rule, 1992 contended that in view of the specific provision in the said Rules, the present proceeding is not maintainable in law. For better appreciation, the provisions contained in Rule 7(2) (b)(ii) of OCS (Pens