IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

W.P.(C) No.20935 of 2025

In the matter of an application under Articles 226 and 227

of the Constitution of India.

………………

Padmanava Purohit …. Petitioner

-versus-

State of Odisha and Others …. Opposite Parties

For Petitioner : Mr. S. Mallik, Advocate For Opp. Parties : Mr. C.K. Pradhan, AGA

PRESENT:

THE HONBLE JUSTICE BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Date of Hearing:29.10.2025 and Date of Judgment:29.10.2025

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Biraja Prasanna Satapathy, J

1. Heard Mr. S. Mallik, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. C.K. Pradhan, learned Addl. Govt.

Advocate for the State.

2. Pursuant to order dated 06.08.2025, learned Addl. Govt. Advocate produced the instruction provided by the Department vide his letter dated

18.10.2025. The same be kept in record.

3. The present Writ Petition has been filed inter alia challenging the initiation of the proceeding vide Memorandum dated 17.03.2025 under Annexure-2, inter alia on the ground that the proceeding is not maintainable in view of the provisions contained under Rule-7(2)(b)(ii) of the OCS(Pension) Rules, 1992 (in short “Rules”). Rule-

7(2)(b) of the Rules reads as follows:- “7(2)(b) such departmental proceedings as referred to in sub-rule (1) if not instituted while the Government servant was in service, whether before his retirement or during his reemployment-

(i) shall not be instituted save with the sanction of Government;

(ii) shall not be in respect of any event which took place more than four years before such institution ; and (iii) shall be conducted by such authority and in such place as the Government may, direct and in accordance with the procedure applicable to departmental proceedings in which an order of dismissal from service could be made in relation to the Government servant during his service;.”

4. Placing reliance on the aforesaid Rule, it is contended that since the proceeding has been initiated in respect of an event which had taken place on 04.03.2021, and more than 4 (four) years have passed prior to initiation of the proceeding on

17.03.2025, the proceeding is not maintainable.

4.1. In support of his submission, reliance was also placed to a decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Suchismita Misra Vs. High Court of Orissa and Others. Hon’ble Apex Court in the said case interfered with the charges served on the petitioner on 16.10.2021, in respect of the events for the period from 28.06.2012 to 03.10.2015. Placing reliance on the aforesaid provision contained under Rule-7(2)(b) of the Rules, the view of the Hon’ble Apex Court reads as follows:-

“Admittedly, in the instant case, the petitioner stood retired from service on 31.07.2021 and chargesheet was served on 11/16.10.2021 and this is for the period when the petitioner served as a Registrar from 28.06.2012 to 03.10.2015, and that it is indisputedly beyond the period of four years of such institution.

In the given facts and circumstances, in our considered view, the chargesheet served on the petitioner dated 11/16.10.2021 is in clear breach of the mandate of Rule 7 of Rules 1992.

Consequently, the writ petition succeeds and is allowed. The chargesheet dated 11/16.10.2021 and other consequential departmental proceedings initiated against the petitioner stand quashed.

5. Mr. C.K. Pradhan, learned Addl. Govt. Advocate on the other hand basing on the instruction though admits that the proceeding has been initiated in respect of the fraudulent transaction made by the petitioner on 04.03.2021, but contended that since public interest is involved and such a document has been executed on 04.03.2021 while petitioner was working as District Sub-Registrar, Bolangir, the proceeding is very much maintainable. It is contended that Rule-7(2)(b)(ii) of the Rules is to be interpretated taking into account the public interest involved. Since petitioner while continuing