p. 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.A. No. 2714 of 2024 Ramesh Chandra Behera, OFS (SG) …. Appellant Mr. S. K. Dash, Advocate -versus- State of Odisha and Others …. Respondents Mr. Umesh Chandra Behura, AGA CORAM: JUSTICE KRISHNA SHRIPAD DIXIT JUSTICE CHITTARANJAN DASH ORDER Order No. 12.02.2026 05. This Intra-Court appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 15.07.2024 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.(OAC) No. 1533 of 2016 (arising out of O.A. No. 1533 of 2016), whereby the writ petition was dismissed and the order of punishment dated 23.02.2015 as well as the appellate order dated 14.03.2016 were affirmed. 2. The Appellant, a member of the Odisha Finance Service, was posted as Commercial Tax Officer, Rourkela-I Circle from 17.09.2004 to 10.09.2007. A Disciplinary Proceeding was initiated against him on 13.11.2009 on the allegation that during his incumbency, he facilitated grant of registration and issuance of waybills in favour of M/s. Tapan Enterprises in violation of departmental instructions, thereby causing loss to the State exchequer. After framing of charges and submission of explanation, the Commissioner for Departmental Inquiries was p. 2 appointed as Inquiring Officer on 16.06.2010. The Inquiring Officer submitted his report on 19.09.2014, holding several charges not established and some partly proved. The Disciplinary Authority, however, disagreed and, by order dated 23.02.2015, imposed penalty of recovery of Rs. 3.46 lakhs in instalments along with withholding of one annual increment with cumulative effect -. The appellant preferred a statutory appeal on 17.06.2015, but by order dated 14.03.2016, the same authority confirmed the punishment while acting as Appellate Authority. Challenging both orders, the appellant filed O.A. No. 1533 of 2016 before the State Administrative Tribunal. Upon cessation of the Orissa State Administrative Tribunal, the O.A. stood transferred to this Court and was renumbered as W.P.(OAC) No. 1533 of 201. By judgment dated 15.07.2024, the learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition and upheld the impugned orders, also observing that the same would be subject to the outcome of Sambalpur Vigilance P.S. Case No. 36 of 2010. Aggrieved thereby, the present writ appeal has been filed. 3. Since the Appellant has retired on attaining the age of superannuation and no charge-sheet had been filed in the Vigilance Case as on the date of his retirement, the said criminal proceeding cannot be treated as pending for the purpose of pensionary embargo. The disciplinary proceeding also stands concluded by the present order. A conjoint reading of Rule 66 with Rule 7 of the Odisha Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1992, p. 3 therefore, entitles the Appellant to pension and other consequential terminal benefits, subject to law. 4. It is not in dispute that a Vigilance Case is stated to be pending. In the departmental proceeding, out of the charges framed, three were held to be partly proved, namely: showing favour to a registered dealer, causing loss to the State exchequer, and failure to follow instructions of superior officers. These three charges have been held proved. However, the allegation relating to causing loss to the exchequer was not found proved by the Inquiring Officer; the Disciplinary Authority, after issuing a notice of disagreement and following due proposal notice procedure. The Appellant has rendered long service without any earlier adverse entry. The Hon’ble Apex Supreme Court has consistently held that long and spotless service is a relevant mitigating factor while determining quantum of punishment. This aspect has not received due consideration by the learned Single Judge. 5. Secondly, in respect of retired employees, it has been observed by the Karnataka High Court in the matter of Managing Director, KPTCL vs. L. Mallikarjunappa, reported in 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 159, that they should be treated with soft gloves since they are in the evening of life, having retired after putting in a long & spotless service during their productive years. Keeping this in view, although the findings are kept intact, the punishment is modified by permitting recovery of 10% p. 4 towards the loss to the exchequer while deleting the penalty of withholding of one annual increment with cumulative effect, in the fitness of things. Provisional pension shall be sanctioned to the Appellant, if not already sanctioned, in terms of Rule 66 of the Odisha Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1992, subject to the outcome of the Vigilance Case pending before the jurisdictional court. 6. The Appeal is accordingly allowed. Web copy of this order to be acted upon by all concerned. (Krishna Shripad Dixit) Judge (Chittaranjan Dash) Judge AKPradhan Designation: Senior Stenographer