IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C) No.9522 of 2026 Sanjaya Kumar Patro …. Petitioner Mr. S.P. Pati, Advocate -versus- State of Odisha & Ors. …. Opposite Parties Mr. S. Das, ASC CORAM: JUSTICE BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY Order No. ORDER 18.05.2026 02. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual/Physical) Mode. 2. Pursuant to the order dtd.24.04.2026, learned Addl. Standing Counsel for the State produced the instruction so provided by the Department with service of copy on the learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner. The same be kept in record. 3. Basing on the instruction, it is contended that taking into account the gravity of the charges, the Department be allowed to continue with the proceeding and there is no illegalities with regard to initiation of the proceeding. 4. Heard learned counsel appearing for the Parties. 5. The present Writ Petition has been filed inter alia with the following prayer:- “It is therefore prayed that the Hon'ble Court be graciously pleased to; i) To quash the Departmental Proceeding vide Memorandum No. 5789 dated 25.03.2025 under Annexure-2 against the petitioner being instituted after retirement in gross violation of Rule 7 (2)(b)(ii) of OCS (Pension) Rules, 1992, And ii) be pleased to pass such other order/orders as deemed fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case, And for which act of kindness, the petitioner shall as in duty bound ever pray.” 6. Learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner contended that the proceeding in question has been initiated vide Memorandum dtd.25.03.2025 under Annexure-2, in terms of the provisions contained under Rule-7(2) of the OCS (Pension) Rules, 1992. 6.1. It is contended that as found from the Article of Charges so enclosed to the Memorandum, the proceeding has been initiated in respect of the events happened during the period 27.09.1991 to December, 1994, when Petitioner was continuing as an Asst. Engineer. 6.2. Placing reliance on the provisions contained under Rule-7(2) (b) of the OCS (Pension) Rules, 1992, it is contended that since the events which are the basis of the initiation of the proceeding, relate to the period from 27.09.1991 to December, 1994, no such proceeding is permissible to be initiated on the face of the retirement of the Petitioner on 30.06.2021. Rule- 7(2) (b) of the Rules reads as follows:- "7. (2) (b) Such departmental proceedings as referred to in sub-rule (1) if not instituted while the Government servant was in service, whether before retirement or during his re-employment:- (i) shall not be instituted save with the sanction of the 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;" It is accordingly contended that since the initiation of the proceeding is bad in the eye of law, the same is liable to be quashed. 7. Learned Addl. Standing Counsel on instruction contended that since the charges are very serious with far reaching implication, the proceeding has been initiated against the Petitioner vide Memorandum dtd.25.03.2025 under Annexure-2. Since the charges are very grievous, no illegality or irregularity can be found with regard to initiation of the proceeding and Petitioner be directed to participate in the same. 8. Having heard learned counsel appearing for the Parties and considering the submissions made, it is found that the proceeding in question has been initiated against the Petitioner vide Memorandum dtd.25.03.2025 under Annexure-2, in respect of the events which have taken place during the period from 27.09.1991 to December, 1994 while the Petitioner was continuing as an Asst. Engineer in (R & B) Sub- Division, Rambha. 8.1. Placing reliance on the provisions contained under Rule-7(2)(b) of the Rules and since it is not disputed that Petitioner has retired on 30.06.2021, it is the view of this Court that no proceeding is maintainable in respect of the events, which have taken place during the period from 27.09.1991 to December, 1994. In view of the provisions contained under Rule-7 (2)(b) of the Rules, it is the view of this Court that the proceeding is not maintainable. 9. Accordingly, this Court is inclined to quash the proceeding dtd.25.03.2025 so initiated under Annexure-2 and quash the proceeding accordingly. 10. The Writ Petition stands disposed of. (Biraja Prasanna Satapathy) Subrat Judge