IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C) No.14154 of 2021 In the matter of an application under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. ……………… Pratap Chandra Nayak …. Petitioner -versus- State of Odisha and Others …. Opposite Parties For Petitioner : Mr. M.K. Mohanty, Advocate For Opp. Parties : Mr. P.K. Panda, ASC PRESENT: THE HONBLE JUSTICE BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY --------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Date of Hearing:12.05.2026 and Date of Judgment:12.05.2026 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Biraja Prasanna Satapathy, J. 1. Pursuant to order dated 04.05.2026 and 08.05.2026, learned Addl. Standing Counsel contended that he has not yet received any instruction. AFR 2. Heard Mr. M.K. Mohanty, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. P.K. Panda, learned Addl. Standing Counsel for the State. 3. The present Writ Petition has been filed inter alia with the following prayer: - “Therefore, it is humbly prayed that this Hon'ble Court may graciously be pleased to direction in the nature of certiorari or any other appropriate writ or direction quashing the Order No. 3430 dated 19.11.2013 under Annexure- 6- C and further issue a writ or direction in the nature of Mandamus for any other appropriate writ or direction to 0pp. Parties to regularise the leave period and to release the pension/Provisional Pension, as well as all retirement benefits as due and admissible to the applicant forthwith.” 4. Learned counsel for the Petitioner contended that in the proceeding initiated vide Memorandum dated 24.11.2004, petitioner has been imposed with the punishment of removal vide the impugned order dated 19.11.2013 under Annexure-6-C. 4.1. It is contended that by the time such order of removal was passed, since petitioner had already retired on attaining the age of superannuation on 31.10.2006, no such order of removal could have been passed as petitioner was not in service by then. In support of his submission, reliance was placed to a decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Anant R. Kulkarni Vs. Y.P. Education Society and Others reported in (2013) 6 SCC 515. Hon’ble Apex Court in Para-24 of the judgment has held as follows:- “24. Thus, it is evident from the above, that the relevant rules governing the service conditions of an employee are the determining factors as to whether and in what manner the domestic enquiry can be held against an employee who stood retired after reaching the age of superannuation. Generally, if the enquiry has been initiated while the delinquent employee was in service, it would continue even after his retirement, but nature of punishment would change. The punishment of dismissal/removal from service would not be imposed.” 4.2. It is accordingly contended that order of removal passed under Annexure-6-C on 19.11.2013, is not sustainable in the eye of law and requires interference of this Court. 4.3. However, it is fairly contended that in the proceeding in question after filing of the written statement of defence on 05.01.2005 under Annexure-1 series, petitioner was never issued with any letter by the Enquiry Officer to attend the enquiry and the enquiry report so filed by the Enquiry Officer under Annexure-2- A, was also never provided to the petitioner. It is accordingly contended that the proceeding be relegated to the stage of enquiry. 5. Even though a counter affidavit has been filed by the State supporting the impugned order, but learned Addl. Standing Counsel failed to satisfy this Court as to how an order of removal can be passed against an employee after his retirement. 5.1. Learned Addl. Standing Counsel though contended that petitioner has been duly noticed by the enquiry officer, but since no document is enclosed to the counter affidavit, in support of the same, this Court is unable to accept such contention. 6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and considering the submission made and placing reliance on the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Anant R. Kulkarni so cited (supra), this Court is of the view that since by the time the proceeding was disposed of with passing of the impugned order dtd.19.11.2013 under Annexure-6-C, petitioner had already retired on attaining the age of superannuation on 31.10.2006, no such order of removal could have been passed. 6.1. Therefore, while quashing order dated 19.11.2013 under Annexure-6-C, this Court remits the matter to Opp. Party No.3 to dispose of the proceeding in accordance with law. This Court while relegating the matter for fresh disposal in accordance with law, directs Opp. Party No.4 and/or the appropriate authority, to start the proceeding from the stage of enquiry with appointment of a fresh enquiry officer. 6.2. Since the proceeding is of the year 2004 and petitioner has retired since 2006, this Court directs Opp. Party No.3 and/or the appropriate authority to dispose of the proceeding as expeditiously as possible preferably by the end of this year. Petitioner is directed to co- operate in the enquiry and for such disposal of the proceeding within the aforesaid time period. 6.3. However, it is observed that if the proceeding is not disposed of within the aforesaid time period, the proceeding initiated vide Memorandum dtd.24.11.2004 under Annexure-1 series, will be treated as dropped. 6.4. It is further observed that, if as contended on the face of the pendency of the proceeding and on the face of sanction of the provisional pension, petitioner has not yet got the benefit, Opp. Party No.3 is directed to release the provisional pension as due and admissible in favour of the petitioner within a period of 4(four) weeks from the date of receipt of this order. 7. The Writ Petition stands disposed of accordingly. (Biraja Prasanna Satapathy) Judge Orissa High Court, Cuttack Dated the 12th May, 2026/Basudev