IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C) No.6132 of 2026 Purna Chandra Jena …. Petitioner Mr. H.N. Mohapatra, Advocate -versus- State of Odisha and Others …. Opposite Parties Mr. S.S. Kanungo, Advocate for O.P. Nos.2 and 3 CORAM: JUSTICE BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY Order No. ORDER 21.04.2026 05. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual/Physical) Mode. 2. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 3. The present Writ Petition has been filed inter alia with the following prayer:- “It is therefore prayed that your Lordships shall be graciously pleased enough to admit the aforesaid writ petition, issue a writ in the nature of mandamus or any form of writ/writs issuing Rule NISI calling upon the Opposite Parties particularly the Opposite Party No.2, Managing Director, Odisha State Cooperative Milk Producers Federation Limited (OMFED), as to why direction shall not be given to him to drop the disciplinary proceeding initiated against the petitioner under Annexure-1 after his retirement and in consequence thereof disburse the service benefits like leave salary and held up increment, which is pending before him within a time stipulated by this Hon'ble Court, considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances. And pass any other order/orders, direction/ directions, writ/writs as this Hon'ble deem fit and proper;” p. 2 p. 2 4. It is contended that while in service, a proceeding was initiated against the petitioner vide Memorandum dated 26.02.2018 under Annexure-1 in terms of the provisions contained under Rule-26(3) of the Odisha State Cooperative Milk Producers Federation Ltd., Conduct, Discipline and Appeal Rules, 1984 (In short Rules) so available under Annexure-6. 4.1. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that since under the aforesaid Rules, there is no such provision for continuance of the proceeding after retirement of the petitioner, proceeding so initiated vide Memorandum dated 26.02.2018 under Annexure-1, is required to be dropped, as petitioner retired from his services on attaining the age of superannuation on 31.03.2019. 4.2. It is contended that since under the aforesaid Rules, there is no such provision for continuance of the proceeding after retirement of an employee, the proceeding is required to be dropped. Even though petitioner made similar prayer before Opp. Party No.2 under Annexure-5 series, but since no decision was taken, the present Writ Petition has been filed with the aforesaid prayer. 5. Mr. S.S. Kanungo, learned counsel appearing for Opp. Party Nos.2 and 3 on the other hand made his submission basing on the stand taken in the counter affidavit so filed. Though it is not disputed by learned counsel appearing for O.P. Nos.2 and 3 that there is no p. 3 p. 3 such provision for continuance of the proceeding after retirement of an employee under the 1984 Rules, but placing reliance on the decision taken by the Board of Directors in the minutes of the 111th meeting held on 21.02.2024, it is contended that in the said meeting, a decision was taken that where there is no specific provision available in OMFED Rules on a particular point in issue, then Rules of the Govt. of Odisha in the matter will be considered and implemented/followed to resolve the controversy and the same will be put up to the Board for approval. 5.1. It is accordingly contended that in view of the aforesaid decision taken in the proceeding of the meeting dated 21.02.2024 under Annexure-A/2, there is no bar to continue with the proceeding. 6. To the submission made by learned counsel appearing for Opp. Party Nos.2 and 3, learned counsel for the petitioner made further submission contending inter alia that since the proceeding was initiated against the petitioner vide Memorandum dated 26.02.2018 and petitioner retired on attaining the age of superannuation on 31.03.2019, the decision taken by the Board in its proceeding dated 21.02.2024 under Annexure-A/2 cannot be made applicable to the petitioner’s claim. 6.1. It is further contended that even though such a decision has been taken under Annexure-A/2, but since it has not been approved by the Board, the said p. 4 p. 4 decision has got no binding effect on the petitioner’s claim. 6.2. It is accordingly contended that since the decision taken in the proceeding under Annexure-A/2 has not yet been approved by the Board, the said decision cannot be made applicable to the claim of the petitioner so far as continuance of the proceeding is concerned. 7. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and considering the submission made, this Court finds that petitioner while in service the proceeding in question was initiated against him vide Memorandum dated 26.02.2018 under Annexure-1. The said proceeding was initiated in terms of the provisions contained under the OMFED Rules, 1984. Since it is not disputed that there is no such provision under the aforesaid Rules for continuance of the proceeding after retirement of the petitioner, this Court is of the view that, since the proceeding was not disposed of prior to retirement of the petitioner on 31.03.2019, the same should have been dropped. 7.1. It is also the view of this Court that the decision taken in the proceeding of the meeting dated 21.02.2024 under Annexure-A/2 cannot be made applicable to the present issue, as the proceeding is of the year 2018 and petitioner retired on attaining the age of superannuation on 31.03.2019. Nothing has been indicated in the said proceeding that the provision will be made applicable retrospectively. Not only that p. 5 p. 5 since the decision taken in the proceeding under Annexure-A/2 has not yet been approved by the Board, the same can also not be applied to the petitioner’s claim. 7.2. In view of the aforesaid analysis and since there is no provision for continuance of the proceeding after retirement of an employee, under the aforesaid Rules, which is not disputed, this Court is of the view that the proceeding is liable to be dropped by the Opp. Party No.2. Therefore, this Court directs Opp. Party No.2 to drop the proceeding so initiated vide Memorandum dated 26.02.2018 under Annexure-1 with passing of an order within a period of 15 days from the date of receipt of this order. 8. The Writ Petition stands disposed of accordingly. (Biraja Prasanna Satapathy) Judge Basudev