No Departmental Proceeding Or Deduction In Retiral Benefits Post Retirement In Absence Of Enabling Provision: Orissa High Court

The Orissa High Court has reiterated that in absence of specific rule/provision, no departmental proceeding can be continued against an employee nor any deduction can be made from his retirement benefits once he retires from service while a departmental enquiry is pending against him.

While granting relief to a retired academician, the Single Bench of Justice Biraja Prasanna Satapathy held –

“…this Court is of the view that the proceeding against the Petitioner since could not be completed prior to his superannuation which fell due on 31.08.2015, the proceeding cannot continue in absence of any provision to that effect either under the 1974 Rules or under the 1981 Rules.”

Brief Background

While the petitioner was working as a Reader in English, S.G. College, Kanikapada, a departmental proceeding was initiated against him under Rule 22 of the Orissa Education (Recruitment and Conditions of Service of Teachers and Members of the Staff of Aided Educational Institutions) Rules, 1974 ('the Rules').

Though proceeding was initiated when the petitioner was in service, but it was never finalized until his superannuation. Thus, it was urged on his behalf that the pending proceeding be quashed as no provision is existent under the Rules which allows continuation of the proceeding even after retirement.

Court's Observations

The Court perused the decisions relied upon by the counsel for the petitioner in the cases of Bhagirathi Jena v. Board of Directors, O.S.F.C. & Ors. and Dev Prakash Tewari v. U.P. Cooperative Institutional Service Board, wherein it was consistently held that in absence of specific provisions in the service Rules, neither any departmental proceeding can be continued nor any deduction from the retirement benefits/pension can be done after an employee retires from service.

The Court also endorsed the following observation made by the High Court in Nimai Charan Samantaray v. Chairman-cum-Managing Director, Orissa State Road Transport Corporation:

“Law has been settled holding that no proceeding can be initiated after the superannuation of an employee unless there is any specific rule in that regard governing the employer or employee…Further for the cessation of the employer and employee relationship after the premature superannuation of the petitioner this Court is also of the view that no disciplinary proceeding can be initiated after the superannuation of an employee.”

After going through the above precedents and upon perusing the Rules, the Court was of the opinion that as the proceeding against the petitioner could not be completed during his service, the same cannot continue to his detriment after his superannuation.

“Therefore, placing reliance on the decision as cited (supra), this Court is inclined to quash the proceeding dtd.20.02.2013 so initiated against the Petitioner under Annexure-4,” the Bench ordered.

Case Title: Sangram Keshari Mohanty v. State of Odisha & Ors.

Case No: W.P.(C) No. 4066 of 2016

Date of Judgment: November 23, 2023

Counsel for the Petitioner: M/s. S.S. Das, S. Jena, R.P. Dalai, K. Mohanty, S.K. Samal, S.P. Nath & S.D. Routray

Counsel for the Respondents: Mr. S.K. Samal, Addl. Govt. Advocate

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ori) 7

Click Here To Read/Download Order