IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C) No.9689 of 2022 & W.P.(C) Nos.35141 & 33699 of 2025 In the matter of an application under Article 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India, 1950. ……………… Sabitri Patra …. Petitioner -versus- State of Odisha & Others …. Opp. Parties For Petitioner : Mr. K.C. Sahu, Advocate For Opp. Parties : Mr. S. P. Das, ASC PRESENT: THE HONBLE JUSTICE BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY Date of Hearing: 18.02.2026 and Date of Judgment: 18.02.2026 Biraja Prasanna Satapathy, J. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual/Physical) Mode. 2. Heard learned counsel appearing for the Parties. 3. Since all these three Writ Petitions have been filed challenging the order of punishment passed on 18.03.2019 in three different disciplinary proceedings initiated against the deceased employee Jay Chandra Patra, all the matters were heard analogously and disposed of by the present common order. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner contended that the deceased employee while in service three different departmental proceedings were initiated against him vide Memorandums dtd.13.01.1982, 03.01.1986 and 31.12.1991. In all those proceedings, the deceased employee not only participated in the proceeding, but also participated in the enquiry. 4.1. However, on the face of such participation of the deceased employee, when no decision was taken in concluding the proceedings, the deceased employee approached the Tribunal in O.A Nos.2126, 2127 & 2128 of 2002 with a prayer to direct the Opposite Parties to conclude the proceedings within a stipulated time period. 4.2. All the three Original Applications were disposed of by the Tribunal vide order dtd.08.11.2002 under Annexures-4 to 6 and with a direction on the disciplinary authority- Opposite Party No.4 to dispose of the proceedings within a period of three (3) months from the date of receipt of the order. The Tribunal passed further order that pending disposal of the disciplinary proceedings, the deceased employee be allowed to draw minimum of the current revised scale attached to the post he is holding. 4.3. It is contended that on the face of such order passed by the Tribunal under Annexures-4 to 6, none of the proceedings initiated against the deceased employee was disposed of, nor the deceased employee was allowed the benefit of increment as due and admissible after allowing the minimum of the revised scale, till he attained the age of superannuation on 30.09.2010. 4.4. It is contended that even after retirement of the deceased employee on 30.09.2010, the deceased employee was not sanctioned with pension and other pensionary benefits, because of the pendency of the proceedings in question. However, without complying the provisions contained under Rule-15 of the OCS (CCA) Rules, 1962 (in short ‘1962 Rules’) and without converting the proceedings to a proceeding under Rule-7 of OCS (Pension) Rules, 1992 (in short ‘1992 Rules’), Opposite Party No.4 by a cryptic orders of even date disposed of all the three proceedings, vide the impugned office order dtd.18.03.2019, which are impugned in the present three Writ Petitions. 4.5. It is also contended that such an order was passed by the disciplinary authority –Opposite Party No.4 on 18.03.2019, basing on the enquiry report submitted on 16.03.2019, so apparent on the face of the impugned order itself. 4.6. Learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner contended that since statutory provisions contained under Rule-15 (10)(i)(a) & (b) of the 1962 Rules were never followed, nor the proceeding was converted to a proceeding under Rule-7 of 1992 Rules, prior to disposal of the proceedings, the order of punishment passed on 18.03.2019 in all the three cases is not sustainable in the eye of law and requires interference of this Court. Rule- 15(10)(i)(a)&(b) of the 1962 Rules and Rule-7 of the 1992 Rules reads as follows:- “Rule I5(10)(i) (a) & (b) of OCS (CC&A) Rules, 1962, provides as follows; "(a) If the inquiring officer is not the disciplinary authority, the disciplinary authority shall furnish to the delinquent Government servant a copy of the report of the inquiring officer and give him notice by registered post or otherwise calling upon him to submit within a period of fifteen days such representation as he may wish to make against findings of the Inquiring Authority. (b) On receipt of the representation referred to in sub clause (a) if the disciplinary authority having regards to the findings on the charges, is of the opinion that any of the penalties specified in clauses (vi) to (ix) of rule 13 should be imposed, he shall furnish to the delinquent Government servant a statement of its findings along with brief reasons for disagreement, if any, with the findings of the inquiring officer and give him a notice by Registered post or otherwise stating the penalty proposed to be imposed on him and calling upon him to submit within a specified time such representation as he may wish to make against the proposed penalty"; As the proposed tentative penalty of “withholding of promotion till his retirement” on the delinquent officer by the Disciplinary Authority does not come under any of the penalties specified in clauses (vi) to (ix) of rule-13 of OCS(CCA) rules, 1962, hence the proposed penalty was not intimated to the delinquent officer. Thus, there is no requirement under law to issue a show cause notice to the delinquent if a major penalty is not being imposed. Hence, as per proviso to Rule-15(10)(i)(b) of OCS(CC&A) Rules, 1962, advice of Odisha Public Service Commission was sought for on the proposed penalty along with all relevant documents Home Department Letter No.567 dated 03.01.2023.” “7. Right of Government to Withhold or Withdraw Pension- (1) The Government reserve to themselves the right of withholding a pension or gratuity, or both either in full or in part, or withdrawing a pension in full or in part. whether permanently or for specified period and of ordering recovery from a pension or gratuity of the whole or part of any pecuniary loss caused to the Government, if in any departmental or judicial proceedings, the pensioner is found guilty of grave misconduct or negligence in duty during the period of his service including service rendered on re- employment after retirement: Provided that the Odisha Public Service Commission shall be consulted before any final orders are passed: Provided further that when a part of pension is withheld / withdrawn, the amount of such pension shall not be reduced below the amount of minimum limit. (2) (a) Such departmental proceedings referred to in sub-rule (1), if instituted while the Government servant was in service, whether before his retirement or during his reemployment, shall, after the final retirement of the Government servant, be deemed to be a proceedings under this rule and shall be continued and concluded by the authority by which they were commenced in the same manner as if the Government servant had continued in service: Provided that when the departmental proceedings are instituted by an authority, subordinate to Government that authority shall submit a report recording its findings to the Government. (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; (c) [deleted] Vide Finance Department Notification No.33464/F., dtd.04.08.2006 (d) In the case of Government servant who has retired on attaining the age of superannuation or otherwise and against whom any departmental or judicial proceedings are instituted or where departmental proceeding are instituted or where departmental proceedings are continued under clauses (a) and (b), a provisional pension as provided in rule 66 shall be sanctioned (e) Where the Government decide not to withhold or withdraw pension but order recovery of pecuniary loss from pension, the recovery shall not ordinarily be made at a rate exceeding one-third of the pension admissible on the date of retirement of a Government servant. Explanation- For the purpose of this rule,- (a) Departmental proceedings shall be deemed to be instituted on the date on which the statement of charges are issued to the Government servant or pensioner, or if the Government servant has been placed under suspension from the date of his suspension; and (b) judicial proceedings shall be deemed to be instituted,- (i) in the case of criminal proceedings, on the date on which the complaint or report of a Police Officer, of which the Magistrate takes cognizance, is made; and (ii) in the case of civil proceedings, on the date of presentation of the plaint in the Court”. 4.7. It is accordingly contended that with quashing of the impugned order dtd.18.03.2019 in all the three cases, Opposite Parties be directed to extend all service and financial benefits as due and admissible to the deceased employee in favour of the Petitioner, who happens to be the wife of the deceased employee with interest as deem fit and proper. 5. Mr. S.P. Das, learned Addl. Standing Counsel for the State on the other hand made his submission basing on the stand taken in the counter affidavit so filed in W.P.(C) No.9689 of 2022. It is contended that all the three orders passed on 18.03.2019 were the subject matter of challenge in W.P.(C) No.9689 of 2022. 5.1. Learned ASC contended that since all the proceedings were initiated against the deceased employee with serious charges, because of the pendency of the proceedings, the deceased employee was not sanctioned with the increment as due and admissible on the revised scale of pay, and after his retirement on 30.09.2010, Petitioner was sanctioned with provisional pension only in terms of the provisions contained under Rule-66 of the 1992 Rules. The wife of the deceased employee / substituted Petitioner is getting the provisional family pension after the death of the deceased employee on 11.10.2023. 5.2. It is contended that since all the three proceedings were initiated against the deceased employee with serious charges, basing on the enquiry report so submitted by the Enquiry Officer on 16.03.2019 under Annexure-C/4-Series, the proceedings were disposed of with imposition of the punishment in each of the proceedings vide order dtd.18.03.2019. 5.3. It is accordingly contended that taking into account the seriousness of the charges and the enquiry report submitted by the Enquiry Officer on dtd.16.03.2019, no illegality or irregularity can be found with the impugned orders so passed on dtd.18.03.2019 in all the three proceedings. 6. Having heard learned counsel appearing for the Parties and considering the submissions made, this Court finds that the deceased employee while in service, three nos. of departmental proceeding were drawn up against him under Rule-15 of the OCS (CCA) Rules, 1962 vide Memorandums dtd.13.01.1982, 03.01.1986 and 31.01.1991. 6.1. On the face of such initiation of the proceeding, as the proceedings were not disposed of and the deceased employee was not extended with the benefit of revised scale of pay under different ORSP Rules, the deceased employee approached the Tribunal by filing O.A Nos.2126, 2127 and 2128 of 2002. The Tribunal vide order dtd.08.11.2002 under Annexures- 4 to 6, while disposing all the three Original Applications directed Opposite Party No.4 to dispose of the proceeding within a period of three (3) months from the date of receipt of the order. Pending disposal of the proceedings, it was also directed to allow the deceased employee to draw the minimum of the revised scale of pay. 6.2. However, on the face of such order passed by the Tribunal on 08.11.2002 under Annexures-4 to 6, all the three proceedings were never disposed of till the deceased employee retired on 30.09.2010. However, after such retirement of the deceased employee and without converting the proceeding to a proceeding under Rule-7 of the 1992 Rules basing on the enquiry report submitted on 16.03.2019, all the three proceedings were disposed of vide the impugned order dtd.18.03.2019 in all the three Writ Petitions. 6.3. This Court after going through the impugned order dtd.18.03.2019 in all the three cases finds that, prior to imposing such punishment, the deceased employee was never issued with the 1st and 2nd show cause as provided under Rule-15(10)(i)(a) & (b) of the 1962 Rules, nor the proceeding was converted to a proceeding under Rule-7 of the 1992 Rules. 6.4. In view of the aforesaid analysis and since statutory provision contained under the 1962 Rules as well as 1992 Rules were never followed by Opposite Party No.4 prior to disposal of all the three proceeding vide the impugned order dtd.18.03.2019, this Court is inclined to quash order dtd.18.03.2019 so passed by Opposite Party No.4 and impugned in all the three cases. While quashing the impugned order dtd.18.03.2019 in all the three cases, this Court directs Opposite Party No.4 to sanction and release all the service benefits as due to the deceased employee prior to his retirement and all the retiral dues as due and admissible to the deceased employee in favour of the present Petitioner, who happens to be the wife. This Court directs Opposite Party No.4 to complete the entire exercise within a period of four (4) months from the date of receipt of this order. 6.5. However, it is observed that, if the order will not be complied with, within the aforesaid time period, the deceased employee will be held eligible and entitled to get interest @ 6% per annum all through, on all the sums to be held payable to the deceased employee. 7. Accordingly, all the Writ Petitions stand disposed of. 8. Photocopy of the order be placed in other connected Writ Petitions. (Biraja Prasanna Satapathy) Judge Orissa High Court, Cuttack Dated the 18th February, 2026/Subrat