IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C) No.28021 of 2025 In the matter of an application under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India.

………………

Biranchi Narayan Behera …. Petitioner -versus-

State of Odisha & Anr. …. Opposite Parties For Petitioner : Mr. N. Rath, Advocate For Opp. Parties : Mr. S.P. Das, ASC PRESENT:

THE HONBLE JUSTICE BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Date of Hearing:11.03.2026 and Date of Judgment:11.03.2026 --------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Biraja Prasanna Satapathy, J

1. Heard Mr. N. Rath, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. S.P. Das, learned Addl. Standing Counsel for the State.

2. Pursuant to order dated 19.02.2026, no affidavit though has been filed by the State Counsel, but learned Addl. Standing Counsel produced the instruction so provided by the Department vide letter dated 04.02.2026. The same be kept in record.

3. The present Writ Petition has been filed inter alia with the following prayer:-

“The petitioner, therefore most humbly prays that this Hon'ble Court may graciously be pleased Admit the writ application, to issue rule Nisi calling upon the opposite parties to show cause as to why the prayers made hereunder be not allowed, upon showing insufficient cause/ no cause make the said Rule absolute. Issue writ/ writs in the nature of i. Certiorari quashing the departmental proceeding initiated against the petitioner as per memorandum dtd. 28..02.2023 as at Annexure-5 declaring the same to be illegal, arbitrary and in contravention of Rule 7 (2) (b)

of the OCS(Pension) Rules, 1992.

ii. And/or may pass such other writ/writs, order/orders, direction/directions as this Hon'ble Court may think fit and proper for the ends of justice.”

4. While assailing the initiation of the proceeding on the ground of maintainability, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that petitioner while in service retired on attaining the age of superannuation on 28.02.2019 in terms of the office order issued on

06.02.2019 under Annexure-2.

4.1. It is contended that even though petitioner retired on 28.02.2019, but the proceeding under Rule-7 of the OCS(Pension) Rules, 1992 (in short “Rules, 1992”) has been initiated vide Memorandum dated 28.02.2023 under Annexure-5, in respect of an event which relates to the period 27.06.1984 to 12.11.2014. Placing reliance on the provisions contained under Rule-7(2)(b) of the OCS(Pension) Rules, 1992 (In short Rules), learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the events basing on which proceeding has been initiated since relates to 4 (four) years prior to the date of retirement of the petitioner, proceeding is ipso-facto not maintainable. Rule-7(2)(b) of the Rules reads as follows:-

“(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 re-employment-

(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 instruction 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.”

4.2. It is accordingly contended that since the proceeding is barred in terms of the aforesaid provision contained under Rule-7(2)(b)(ii) of the Rules, the proceeding is liable to be quashed.

5. Basing on the instruction, learned Addl. Standing Counsel contended that the proceeding is very much maintainable under Rule-7(2)(b) of the Rules. It is contended that after retirement of the petitioner on 28.02.2019 and after receipt of the relevant document from the Vigilance Department on 04.02.2020, sanction was accorded by the Directorate vide of