IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK WA No.394 of 2026 Biranchi Narayan Parija …. Appellant Mr. Ramakrishna Bisoi, Advocate -versus- State of Odisha and another …. Respondents Ms. Biswabara Dash, ASC CORAM: THE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE AND THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE MURAHARI SRI RAMAN Order No. ORDER 06.04.2026 02. 1. At the first blush we were skeptical, whether the appellant can be said to be an aggrieved person as we find that the substantial relief claimed in the writ petition was granted by the Single Bench. 2. However, learned counsel appearing for the appellant submits that while quashing the impugned notice contemplating to initiate a proceeding against the appellant, the Single Bench has directed the authorities to proceed on the basis of the relevant provisions, which ought not to have been granted as the Court cannot confer any right on the authorities to do a thing as the said authority is required to act within the purview of the relevant statutory provisions. 3. The genesis of the dispute originated from a memorandum dated 31st January, 2023 issued by the Collector, Puri contemplating to hold an enquiry against the appellant on attaining the age of superannuation under Rule 15 of the Odisha Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1962 (for short, “the OCS (CCA) Rules”). The appellant contends that the said Rule is not applicable after the attainment of superannuation and, therefore, cannot have any legal standing. 4. In course of hearing of the writ petition, the attention of the Single Judge was drawn to a sanction of the Government in instituting a proceeding against the appellant under Rules 7(2)(b)(i) of the Odisha Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1992 (for short, “the OCS (Pension) Rules”). Since the sanction was accorded by the Government under a different provision and the notice contemplating to institute disciplinary proceeding appears to have been conducted by the Collector under different provisions of the Rules, the Single Bench proceeded to quash the said notice, which we do not find any illegality and/or infirmity therein. 5. Rule 7(2)(b) of the OCS (Pension) Rules postulates that the Departmental Proceeding, as referred in sub-rule(1) of Rule 7 thereof, if not instituted during the service tenure of the Government servant, shall not be instituted save with the sanction of the Government. It further provides that if the incident or the circumstances leading to a misconduct is dated preceding four years from the date of the institution, there is absolute bar/prohibition in instituting and/or initiating such proceeding. The explanation appended to Rule 7 of the OCS (Pension) Rules defines the institution of the Departmental Proceedings. The appellant appears to have misconstrued the said direction for the simple reason that the writ petition was allowed quashing the memorandum dated 31st January, 2023 and did not quash the sanction accorded by the Government on 27th December, 2022. The Single Bench noticed that if the sanction is accorded by the Government after the appellant attained the superannuation under a specific provision, the initiation cannot be done taking shelter under the different provisions. In the event, the subsequent initiation is found to be per se illegal and the sanction remained valid and the incident is within the mischief of the period provided in the said Rules, we do not find any fetter in making such direction and/or order by the Single Bench while disposing of the writ petition. 6. We, thus, do not find any ground warranting interference in the impugned order. Accordingly, the writ appeal, sans merit, is dismissed. As a result of disposal of the writ appeal, all pending Interlocutory Application (s), if any, shall stand disposed of, but in the circumstances there shall be no order as to costs. (Harish Tandon) Chief Justice (M.S. Raman) Judge MRS/Laxmikant Designation: SENIOR STENOGRAPHER