IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK OJC No.14524 of 1996 Salila Patnaik …. Petitioner Ms. S. Pattnayak, Adv. -versus- Orissa small Industries Corporation Ltd. and Another …. Opp. Parties Mr. J.K. Mohapatra, Advocate CORAM: JUSTICE BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY Order No ORDER 29.07.2026 50. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual/Physical) Mode. 2. Heard Ms. S. Pattnayak, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. J.K. Mohapatra, learned counsel appearing for the Corporation. 3. Pursuant to order dated 21.07.2026, learned counsel appearing for the Corporation produced the Original of the proceeding of the 145th meeting of the Board of Directors so held on 30.03.2005 in Court. This Court after going through the said proceeding, finds that petitioner’s appeal was disposed of in terms of the decision taken by the Bord of Directors in its 145th Proceeding dated 30.03.2005 and in the said proceeding amongst all the members who were p. 2 p. 2 present, Managing Director of the Corporation was also a member to the proceeding. 4. The present Writ Petition has been filed inter alia with the following prayer: - “Under these circumstances the petitioner humbly prays that this Hon’ble Court may graciously be pleased to issue a rule Nisi calling upon the Opp. Parties to show cause as to why, i) The Memorandum of charges under Annexure-2 shall not be quashed, ii) The order of the disciplinary authority under Annexure-15 series so far as it relates to the direction that the Inquiring officer would conduct the inquiry in respect of Charge Nos.1,2,3,14,15,21,24,25,27 to 30 shall not be quashed, iii) The Opp. parties shall not be directed to make available the pay scale attached to the post of works Manager with effect from 10.08.1990 and the pay scale as is revised from time to time, iv) The order under Annexure-26 requiring the petitioner to work as Assistant Manger in commercial division shall not be quashed, v) The order under Annexure-27 shall not be quashed, vi) The Opp. parties shall not be directed to consider the case of the petitioner's promotion to the rank of General manager, vii) The Opp. parties shall not be directed to pay the increments which have been held up during the period of suspension, viii) The direction contained in paragraph (d) under Annexure-15 series shall not be quashed, ix) The Opp. parties shall not be directed to pay all the financial benefits including the higher pay and the revised pay as is admissible to the petitioner, p. 3 p. 3 x) The order of the appellate authority dated 15.4.2005 directing recovery of Rs. 1,65,383.85 and the period of suspension treated as such may be quashed as illegal and arbitrary, xi) ANNEXURE-31(i) may be quashed as illegal and arbitrary, If the Opp. parties fail to show cause or show insufficient cause the said Rule Nisi may be made absolute.” 5. It is contended that the deceased employee while in service, the proceeding was initiated against him vide Memorandum dated 11.06.1981 with 12 charges. Subsequently, after submission of the explanation, fresh charges were framed with issuance of a fresh Memorandum on 24.07.1981 under Annexure-2. 5.1. It is contended that petitioner though made an application to provide him the documents so that he can file his written statement of defence, but the documents were never provided to the petitioner. However, petitioner vide Annexure-9, was permitted to verify the records and take extracts of the same. 5.2. Subsequently, in course of enquiry, petitioner though made a grievance before the enquiry officer with a prayer to supply other documents on 12.02.1982 under Annexure-11 and another representation on 31.05.1982 under Annexure-12, but petitioner was never provided with all those documents. 5.3. It is contended that petitioner subsequently on 07.01.1988 under Annexure-13, though made a request to the General Manager of the Corporation to supply the p. 4 p. 4 documents for filing of his written explanation, but the documents were never provided. 5.4. However, petitioner on compelling circumstances, filed his explanation on 27.12.1988. After such filing of written reply, the enquiry officer so appointed on 31.08.1988, submitted the report on 23.05.1989 under Annexure-14 with the following finding:- “In my opinion, all the charges should be dropped or to be precise, he should be exonerated from the charges. Most importantly, the Corporation funds and property needs to be safeguarded. Hence, against each of the charges, any amount outstanding on any individual/firm should be assessed afresh by appointing an Internal auditor, preferably a person who is acquainted with the accounts matters of the unit as well as OSIC. On the basis of his findings, the outstandings may be recovered from the concerned parties by giving a short notice. 5.5. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that even though the enquiry officer in his report dated 23.05.1989 under Annexure-14, came to a definite conclusion that charges should to be dropped and petitioner be exonerated from the charges, but on the face of such enquiry report, petitioner was issued with the show-cause by the Disciplinary Authority-Opp. Party No.1. 5.6. It is contended that even though the proceeding was initiated in the year 1981 and petitioner retired while continuing under the Corporation on 31.01.1997 but the proceeding was never finalized prior to his retirement. It is further contended that as provided under the Employees Service Rules so framed by the p. 5 p. 5 Corporation namely OSIC Ltd., Employees Service Rules, 1979, there is no such provision for continuance of the proceeding after retirement of the petitioner. 5.7. However, on the face of no such provision to continue with the proceeding after retirement and the report submitted by the Enquiry Officer under Annexure-14, the Disciplinary Authority proceeded with the matter and imposed the punishment vide order dated 28.02.1997 under Annexure-31-A. While treating the period of suspension as such, petitioner was held liable to pay a sum of Rs.2,17,029.23/-. 5.8. It is contended that challenging such order of punishment, petitioner when preferred an appeal, the Appellate Authority vide order dated 16.04.2005 under Annexure-32, while disposing the Appeal, only reduced the recovery from Rs.2,17,029.23/- to Rs.1,65,383/-, but the period of suspension was treated as such. 5.9. While assailing the impugned order of punishment passed under Annexure-31-A, confirmed vide order under Annexure-32 by the Appellate Authority, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that since there is no such provision under the 1979 Rules to continue with the proceeding after retirement, the proceeding initiated in the year 1981, should have been dropped after retirement of the petitioner on 31.01.1997. 5.10. However, on the face of any Rules permitting continuance of the proceeding after retirement, Opp. p. 6 p. 6 Party No.1 being the Disciplinary Authority proceeded with the same and passed the impugned order of punishment vide order dated 28.02.1997 under Annexure-31-A. 5.11. It is further contended that even though the petitioner preferred an appeal against such an order of punishment, but the Appellate Authority basing on the decision taken by the Board of Directors in its 145th meeting held on 30.03.2005, though modified the recovery amount to Rs.1,65,383/-, but, the period of suspension was treated as such. 5.12. It is contended that since the Board consists of the Managing Director of the Corporation who happens to be the Disciplinary Authority of the petitioner, basing on such decision of the Board of Directors, where the Disciplinary Authority is also a member, the appeal could not have been disposed of with reduction of the recovery amount to Rs.1,65,383/-. 5.13. It is accordingly contended that the order passed by the Appellate Authority basing on the Boards decision, is also illegal and not sustainable in the eye of law. It is however contended that during pendency of the Writ Petition, since the employee concerned died his wife has been substituted as the Petitioner in the present Writ Petition. 5.14. Making all these submissions, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the impugned order of p. 7 p. 7 punishment so passed under Annexure-31-A, confirmed under Annexure-32, are not sustainable in the eye of law and requires interference of this Court. 6. Learned counsel appearing for the Corporation while supporting the impugned order, contended that in the proceeding initiated in the year 1981 against the deceased employee, he not only filed his written statement of defence after perusing the documents, but also participated in the enquiry. The enquiry officer submitted the report on 23.05.1989 under Annexure- 14. 6.1. It is also contended that even though the Enquiry Officer held the petitioner not guilty of the charges but opined to go for an Internal Audit in order to assess the loss sustained to the Corporation. Basing on such finding of the Enquiry Officer, an Internal Audit was conducted and basing on the internal audit, a fresh enquiry report submitted under Annexure-G/1 on 28.01.1997 and petitioner was held liable with regard to the charges framed against him. 6.2. Basing on such report submitted on 28.01.1997 under Annexure-G/1, the proceeding was disposed of vide order dated 28.02.1997 under Annexure-31-A. Appeal preferred by the petitioner through the Board of Directors, was disposed of with reduction of the recovery amount, basing on the decision taken by the Board of Directors in its 145th meeting held on 30.03.2005. p. 8 p. 8 6.3. It is accordingly contended that since the enquiry officer in his report under Annexure-14 opined to go for an Internal Audit and basing on such Audit, the self- same enquiry officer, held the petitioner guilty of the charges vide Annexure-G/1, petitioner was imposed with the punishment by the Disciplinary Authority-Opp. Party No.1 vide order dated 28.02.1997 under Annexure-31-A. Appeal preferred by the petitioner was also disposed of vide order dated 16.04.2005 under Annexure-32, with reduction of the recovery amount. 6.4. It is accordingly contended that since the self-same enquiry officer after submission of the report under Annexure-14, submitted another report on 28.01.1997 under Annexure-G/1 by holding the petitioner guilty of the charges, no illegality or irregularity can be found with the impugned order. 7. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and considering the submission made, this Court finds that the deceased employee while in service under the Corporation, the proceeding in question was initiated against him on 24.07.1981 under Annexure-2 and prior to that another proceeding had been initiated against him on 11.06.1981. As found, in the said proceeding, the Enquiry Officer submitted the report on 23.05.1989 under Annexure-14, by holding that petitioner is not liable with regard to the charges framed against him and the enquiry officer opined to drop the proceeding. p. 9 p. 9 7.1. However, basing on the information given by the Enquiry Officer to go for an Internal Audit, the Corporation conducted the Internal Audit. Basing on such internal audit, the Enquiry Officer again submitted another report on 28.01.1997 under Annexure-G/1, wherein the deceased employee was held guilty of the charges. 7.2. Basing on such report submitted on 28.01.1997 under Annexure-G/1, the Disciplinary Authority while disposing the proceeding vide order dated 28.02.1997, imposed the punishment by treating the period of suspension as such and by directing for recovery of a sum of Rs.2,17,029.23/-. 7.3. Appeal filed by the petitioner was also disposed of vide order dated 16.04.2005 under Annexure-32 and the Appellate Authority only reduced the recovery from Rs.2,17,029.23/- to Rs.1,65,383/-. 7.4. This Court after going through the provisions contained under the Employees Service Rules, 1979, nowhere finds any provision permitting the disciplinary authority to continue with the proceeding after retirement of the petitioner, which the deceased employee attained on 31.01.1997. Since there is no such provision under the 1979 Service Rules, to continue with the proceeding after retirement of a delinquent employee and in the instant case, the proceeding was disposed of vide order dated 28.02.1997, after the retirement of the deceased p. 10 p. 10 employee on 31.01.1997, it is the view of this Court that order of punishment passed in the said proceeding after retirement of the deceased employee, is not sustainable in the eye of law. 7.5. Not only that as found from the record and the proceeding of the 145th meeting so produced in Court, the appeal filed by the petitioner was disposed of basing on the decision taken by the Board of Directors in its 145th meeting held on 30.03.2005. However, it is found that Disciplinary Authority-O.P. No.1 was a member of the Board. It is the view of this Court that since the Board consists of the Disciplinary Authority as one of its member, who had passed the original order of punishment on 28.02.1997, basing on such decision of the Board, the appeal could not have been disposed of. 7.6. In view of the aforesaid illegalities or irregularity which are apparent on the face of the record, this Court is of the view that no punishment could have been imposed on the deceased employee after retirement on 31.01.1997. Therefore, this Court is inclined to quash order dated 28.02.1997, so passed by Opp. Party No.1 under Annexure-31-A and so also the order dated 16.04.2005 so passed by the Appellate Authority basing on the Board’s decision 16.04.2005 under Annexure-32. 7.7. While quashing both the orders, this Court allows the Writ Petition, and direct the Opp. Party-Corporation to release the benefits as due and admissible to the deceased employee in favour of the substituted p. 11 p. 11 petitioner within a period of 2 (two) months from the date of receipt of this order. 8. The Writ Petition stands disposed of accordingly. (Biraja Prasanna Satapathy) Judge Basudev