The District Education Officer's order imposing penalty post-retirement was contrary to the Orissa Civil Services (Pension) Rules, as validity lies solely with the State Government after retirement.

Judgment:

S.S. Mishra, J.

The present Writ Appeal is directed against the order dated 29.06.2021 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P.(C) No.18173 of 2021 directing the appellant to prefer an appeal before the appellate authority ventilating his grievance.

2. Following conspectus of facts as borne out from the record is recounted for the convenience of ready appreciation:

The appellant, while continuing as Senior Clerk in the Office of the Respondent No.4-Accountant General, Odisha (A & E), Bhubaneswar, was placed under suspension vide order dated 07.02.1994 issued by the District Education Officer, Bhadrak.

The departmental proceeding was initiated against the appellant on 10.10.1996 and charge memo was issued alleging some financial irregularities in the Office of the D.I. of Schools, Bhadrak. The appellant filed his response by denying all the charges. Thereafter, the appellant was reinstated in the service on 25.11.2003.

The departmental proceeding did not proceed further and in the meantime, on 31.03.2006, the appellant demitted the office on superannuation. After lapse of about six years on 29.10.2013, an Enquiring Officer was appointed by the Respondent No.3 to further continue the departmental proceeding initiated on 10.10.1996. The Enquiring Officer submitted his report after completion of the enquiry to the respondent no.3 on 29.01.2014, which was communicated to the appellant on 18.02.2019.

Owing to the aforementioned departmental proceeding, the appellant was deprived of his pensionary benefits, hence he approached this Court by filing writ petition bearing W.P.(C) No.22898 of 2020 with a prayer to quash the entire departmental proceeding since the same suffered unexplained prolongation. The learned Single Judge disposed of the writ petition vide order dated 07.10.2020, directing the respondent no.3 to finalise the proceeding within eight weeks. Since the timeline was not followed by the respondent no.3, another writ petition being W.P.(C) No.8722 of 2021, was filed. The learned Single Judge disposed of the matter vide order dated 30.03.2021, directing that the proceeding be finalised within one month, failing which the order shall be passed for quashing of the entire departmental proceeding.

The appellant was noticed by the respondent no.3, to which he replied on 03.05.2021. On the same day, i.e., on 03.05.2021, the respondent no. 3 rejected the appellant's appeal and directed recovery of Rs. 3,92,561/- from the appellant's pensionary benefits.

The said order of the respondent no.3 dated 03.05.2021 was questioned by the appellant in W.P.(C) No.18173 of 2021. The learned Single Judge vide order dated 29.06.2021 refused to entertain the writ petition, rather directed the appellant to resort to the remedy available under the Rules by filing appropriate appeal and liberty was also granted to the appellant to raise all the issues before the appellate authority.

3. Aggrieved by the aforementioned, the appellant has filed the present intra-Court appeal. This court while issuing notice to the respondents vide the order dated 28.02.2025 observed as under:

“It appears from the impugned order dated 29.06.2021 that the learned Single Judge after hearing the parties and going through the records and since both the parties admitted that being the disciplinary authority, the District Education Officer on the basis of the proceeding initiated against the petitioner under Rule 15 of the OCS (CC & A) Rules, 1962 passed the impugned order of punishment dated 03.05.2021 held that the order is an appealable one. Since, contention was raised by the learned counsel for the appellant during the hearing of the writ petition