Page 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.C (OAC) No.2888 of 2018 (In the matter of petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, 1950). Ranjit Kumar Rout …. Petitioner(s) -versus- State of Odisha & Ors. …. Opposite Party(s) Advocates appeared in the case through Hybrid Mode: For Petitioner (s) : Mr. Khetrabasi Mohanty, Adv. -versus- For Opp. Party(s) : Smt. Sarita Moharana, ASC CORAM: DR. JUSTICE SANJEEB K PANIGRAHI DATES OF HEARING:- 11.12.2025 DATE OF JUDGMENT:- 09.01.2026 Dr. Sanjeeb K Panigrahi, J. 1. The petitioner in the present case seeks a declaration that the impugned letter dated 18th August, 2018 is illegal and arbitrary, and a consequential direction to Opposite Party No.5 to adjust the outstanding amount of Rs.1,64,222/-, comprising Rs.1,60,000/- towards Forest Advance and Rs.4,222/- towards Labour Cess, in the ledger account of the petitioner, since the petitioner has retired from Government service as Assistant Conservator of Forests on Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 15-Jan-2026 19:31:53 Signature Not Verified Page 2 superannuation with effect from 31.08.2018, without any remark at any point of time throughout his service career. I. FACTUAL MATRIX OF THE CASE: 2. Succinctly put, the facts of the case as narrated by the petitioner are as follows: (i) While the petitioner was working as Forest Range Officer (K.L.), Baliguda under Phulbani (K.L.) Division, the then Forester, Sri Durga Madhab Padhy, a Government employee working under the petitioner, received Forest Advance of Rs.1,60,000/- in April, 2008 for Government forest works such as bush cutting and repair and maintenance of phadees, in accordance with the applicable rules, after signing Form-51 prescribed under the Forest Code. (ii) Under the Forest Code, the Forester was required to submit payment vouchers within the prescribed time. However, he failed to do so despite memos and reminders issued by the petitioner. The petitioner accordingly intimated the matter to the competent authority, namely Opposite Party No.5. Thereafter, Opposite Party No.5 issued a memorandum dated 13.05.2008 directing the Forester to submit all payment vouchers and muster rolls. (iii) As the Forester ignored the aforesaid directions and failed to submit the payment vouchers, the Government placed him under suspension with effect from 23.05.2008, vide Memo No.74 dated 28.05.2008. The Forest Advance pertained to the month of April, 2008 and the suspension was ordered upon intimation by the petitioner regarding the said default. Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 15-Jan-2026 19:31:53 Signature Not Verified Page 3 (iv) Thereafter, a departmental proceeding was initiated against the Forester vide Office Order No.172 dated 30.11.2011. The Enquiry Officer conducted the enquiry and submitted a report recording findings relating to the Forest Advance drawn by the Forester. (v) On 01.03.2013, the petitioner deposited a sum of Rs.4,222/- with the State Bank of India, Baliguda towards Labour Cess by way of bank draft in favour of the Chief Executive Officer, Odisha Building and Construction Workers’ Welfare Board, Bhubaneswar, which was forwarded to the District Labour Officer, Phulbani. The said transaction was reflected in the P.L. Account of the petitioner and was intimated to Opposite Party No.5 on 10.06.2013. (vi) The petitioner was thereafter transferred on promotion with effect from 28.02.2015 and subsequently retired from Government service as Assistant Conservator of Forests on superannuation with effect from 31.08.2018. (vii) After his retirement, the amounts of Rs.1,60,000/- and Rs.4,222/- were withheld from the petitioner’s General Provident Fund. (viii) Aggrieved by the withholding of the aforesaid amounts, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition. II. SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER: 3. Learned counsel for the Petitioner earnestly made the following submissions in support of his contentions. (i) The petitioner contended that the disbursement of Rs.1,60,000/- as Forest Advance to the Forester, a Government employee, and the payment of Rs.4,222/- towards Labour Cess by way of bank draft Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 15-Jan-2026 19:31:53 Signature Not Verified Page 4 forwarded to the District Labour Officer were transparent transactions and did not involve any concealment. It was submitted that the petitioner committed no mistake, irregularity, illegality, lapse, or lacuna in relation thereto. The petitioner further contended that, as a Government officer, he discharged his duties and responsibilities sincerely and satisfactorily. The petitioner was subsequently transferred and promoted with effect from 28.02.2015 and thereafter retired from Government service as Assistant Conservator of Forests on superannuation with effect from 31.08.2018. (ii) The counter affidavit filed on behalf of the Government and the opposite parties substantially accepts the factual assertions made in the writ petition, except for the contention that it was the duty of the petitioner to recover the payment vouchers. III. SUBMISSIONS OF THE OPPOSITE PARTIES: 4. Per contra, the learned counsel for the Opposite Parties earnestly made the following submissions in support of his contentions: (i) It was contended that, under paragraph 322(2) of the Odisha Forest Department Code, 1979, it was the duty of the petitioner, being the disburser, to recover the payment vouchers relating to the Forest Advance. It was submitted that when a cash advance is made, the amount is required to be charged in the cash book under the head “Forest Advances” and, until cleared, the advance is to be held at the personal debit of the disburser. (ii) The opposite parties further submitted that, as per paragraph 322(1) of the Forest Department Code, 1979, the disburser who receives Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 15-Jan-2026 19:31:53 Signature Not Verified Page 5 advances directly from the drawing officer and renders accounts to him is required to maintain a cash book. (iii) It was stated that the Forester, Sri Durga Madhab Padhy, was placed under suspension vide Office Order No.74 dated 23.05.2008 due to non-submission of work-done payment vouchers and that a departmental proceeding was initiated against him vide Office Order No.172 dated 30.11.2011. It was further submitted that, as per the enquiry report submitted vide Memo No.76 dated 02.06.2017, the charge relating to misappropriation of Government money stood established against the said Forester and that the departmental proceeding is pending challenge before the Odisha Administrative Tribunal, Cuttack in Case No.1502(C)/2017. (iv) It was contended that, notwithstanding the pendency of proceedings against the Forester, the petitioner remained liable for non-recovery of the Forest Advance amounting to Rs.1,60,000/- in his capacity as the disburser, in terms of paragraph 322(2) of the Forest Department Code, 1979. (v) With regard to the Labour Cess amount of Rs.4,222/-, it was submitted that the P.L. Account of the Range Officer (K.L.), Baliguda for the month of March, 2013, received vide Memo No.168 dated 10.06.2013, did not reflect the said transaction. (vi) The opposite parties further submitted that the amounts of Rs.1,60,000/- and Rs.4,222/- could not be adjusted or deducted unless the same were cleared, as contemplated under paragraph 322(2) of the Forest Department Code, 1979. It was contended that the Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 15-Jan-2026 19:31:53 Signature Not Verified Page 6 recommendation for recovery of Rs.1,64,222/- from the petitioner was justified, he being the disburser. (vii) It was also submitted that the outstanding amount of Rs.1,64,222/- was legal and valid and that the impugned letter was issued on the basis of the facts and materials relied upon by the opposite parties. (viii) The opposite parties contended that the Original Application was misconceived, not supported by law, and contrary to the provisions of the Forest Department Code, 1979 and was liable to be dismissed. IV. COURT’S ANALYSIS AND REASONING 5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the pleadings and materials placed on record. 6. From the rival submissions, it is evident that the factual matrix is largely undisputed. The limited issue that arises for consideration is whether, in the absence of any disciplinary proceeding or finding of misconduct against the petitioner, the respondents were justified in withholding an amount of Rs.1,64,222/- from the General Provident Fund of the petitioner after his retirement, on the basis of his role as disburser of the Forest Advance and with reference to Paragraph 322 of the Odisha Forest Department Code, 1979. 7. It is not in dispute that the Forest Advance of Rs.1,60,000/- was drawn by the Forester, a subordinate Government employee, for execution of departmental forest works. It is equally undisputed that the said Forester failed to submit payment vouchers within the prescribed time. Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 15-Jan-2026 19:31:53 Signature Not Verified Page 7 8. On a perusal of the record, it is clear that the petitioner did not remain inactive. He issued reminders and promptly brought the default to the notice of the competent authority. Consequent thereto, the Forester was placed under suspension and departmental proceedings were initiated against him. The enquiry conducted thereafter recorded findings against the said Forester. 9. It is also imperative to note that no departmental proceeding was ever initiated against the petitioner. There is no material on record to suggest that any charge was framed against him or that any finding of misconduct was recorded at any point of time. 10. On the contrary, the petitioner was promoted in the normal course and thereafter retired from Government service on superannuation with effect from 31.08.2018 without any adverse remark, which reinforces the absence of any blemish on his service record. 11. It is also an admitted position that the withholding of the amounts in question was effected only after the petitioner had retired from service. 12. The General Provident Fund is not a matter of grace or concession but a statutory retiral benefit payable on retirement, which cannot be withheld except in accordance with law. Retiral benefits are ordinarily withheld only after liability is fixed through a valid disciplinary proceeding or adjudication. 13. In the present case, the Opposite Parties have not placed on record any order fixing liability upon the petitioner. No recovery proceedings were initiated against him during his service tenure and no order Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 15-Jan-2026 19:31:53 Signature Not Verified Page 8 determining personal responsibility was passed prior to his retirement. 14. The Opposite Parties seek to justify their action solely by invoking Paragraph 322 of the Odisha Forest Department Code, 1979, contending that the petitioner, being the disburser, remains personally liable until the advance is cleared. It is therefore necessary to examine Paragraph 322 in its plain terms. Sub-paragraph (1) defines the category of officers who act as disbursers and casts upon them the obligation to maintain a cash book and render accounts. Sub- paragraph (2) provides that when a cash advance is made, the same shall be charged in the cash book under the head “Forest Advances” and, until cleared, be held at the personal debit of the disburser. A plain reading reveals that the provision is concerned with the limited purpose of accounting of advances and cannot be read as creating a perpetual source of financial liability, particularly once the officer has retired from service. To read Paragraph 322(2) as authorising recovery from retiral benefits of a retired officer, in the absence of any finding of misconduct or negligence against him, would amount to converting it into a punitive mechanism, which is not contemplated by the provision. 15. Acceptance of the Opposite Parties’ interpretation would further result in fastening vicarious liability upon a retired officer for the default of a subordinate employee, without any enquiry or determination against the officer himself. Such an approach is contrary to the principles of fairness that govern service jurisprudence. Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 15-Jan-2026 19:31:53 Signature Not Verified Page 9 16. The Opposite Parties themselves submit that the enquiry report establishes misappropriation by the Forester and that departmental proceedings against him are pending adjudication. Having identified the delinquent employee and initiated proceedings against him, the respondents cannot, in the same breath, proceed to recover the amount from the petitioner without first fixing his liability in accordance with law. The impugned action, therefore, cannot be sustained. V. CONCLUSION 17. In view of the foregoing analysis, this Court holds that the withholding of the amounts of Rs.1,60,000/- and Rs.4,222/- from the General Provident Fund of the petitioner, after his retirement and in the absence of determination of liability against him, is unsustainable in law. 18. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is allowed. 19. The impugned letter dated 18.08.2018 is quashed. The respondents are directed to release the withheld amount of Rs.1,64,222/- to the petitioner forthwith, within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 20. It is clarified that this order shall not preclude the respondents from taking steps, in accordance with law, to recover the said amount from the delinquent Forester or from any other person found liable after due process. Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 15-Jan-2026 19:31:53 Signature Not Verified Page 10 21. Interim order, if any, passed earlier stands vacated. (Dr. Sanjeeb K Panigrahi) Judge Orissa High Court, Cuttack, Dated the 9th Jan. 2026. CUTTACK