The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C) No.1364 of 2025 In the matter of an application under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. ……………… Achyutananda Pradhan …. Petitioner -versus- State of Odisha & Others …. Opposite Parties For Petitioner :
Legal Reasoning
Mr. D.N. Rath, Advocate For Opp. Parties : Mr. S.K. Jee, AGA PRESENT: THE HONBLE JUSTICE BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---- Date of Hearing:20.03.2025 and Date of Judgment:20.03.2025 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- --- Biraja Prasanna Satapathy, J. 1. Heard Mr. D.N. Rath, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. S.K. Jee, learned Addl. Govt. Advocate for the State. // 2 // 2. Pursuant to the order dated 03.02.2025, learned Addl. Govt. Advocate produced the instruction provided by the BEO, Rairakhol vide letter dated 04.03.2025. The same be kept in record. 3. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 4. The Petitioner has filed the present Writ Petition inter alia with the following prayer: -
Decision
“Under the above circumstance, it is therefore humbly prayed that this Hon’ble Court may be graciously pleased to issue a writ in the nature of writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, direction or order by quashing the Memorandum dated 19.12.2024 issued by the Opposite Party No.4 vide Annexure-12 to the writ petition. the opposite party no.4 And this Hon’ble Court be further pleased to direct the Opp. Parties, more to particularly release the final pension and other benefits in favour of the petitioner forthwith pursuant to the direction of the opposite party no.2 dated 23.11.2023, since the said benefit has already been released in favour of other similarly situated persons pursuant to the direction of this Hon’ble Court in W.P.(C) No.17412 of 2019 and batch of writ petitions.” 5. It is contended that petitioner was appointed as a Non-formal Teacher vide order of appointment issued on 09.02.1984 under Annexure-1 and subsequently petitioner was absorbed as a Regular Page 2 of 8 // 3 // Primary School Teacher in the year 1996 and allowed to continue till he attained the age of superannuation on 30.06.2023. 5.1. After his retirement, when Pension Papers were submitted for the purpose of sanction of Pension and other pensionary benefits in favour of the petitioner, instead of releasing the same, the impugned proceeding has been initiated vide Memorandum dated 19.12.2024 under Annexure- 14 inter alia with the following charges:- “That you had not acquired the CT/B.Ed. to qualification before 31.05.1996 pursuant Notification No.25630 dated 19.08.1996 and got appointment for appointment as Regular Teacher illegally.” 5.2. Learned counsel for the petitioner placing reliance on Rule-7(2)(b) of the OCS (Pension) Rules, 1992 (in short “Rules”), contended that the charge is with regard to the allegation that the petitioner had not acquired C.T./B.Ed. qualification before 31.05.1996 and got appointment as a Regular Teacher, illegally. Page 3 of 8 // 4 // 5.3. It is contended that since the issue is in respect of an incident of the year 1996 which is more than 4 (four) years prior to initiation of the proceeding, no such proceeding with the charges could have been initiated against the petitioner in view of the provision contained under Rule-7(2)(b) of the Rules. Rule-7(2)(b) of the Rules reads as follows:- “(2) (b) such departmental proceedings as referred to in sub-rule (1) if not instituted while the Government servant was in service, whether before his retirement or during his reemployment- (i) shall not be instituted save with the sanction of 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 to departmental proceedings in which an order of dismissal from service could be made in relation to the Government servant during his service;.” the procedure applicable 5.4. In support of his aforesaid submission, learned counsel for the petitioner also relied on a decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Writ Petition (Civil) No.1042 of 2021, in the case of Suchismita Misra Vrs. High Court of Orissa and Others. Page 4 of 8 // 5 // Hon’ble Apex Court in the said judgment dated 17.05.2023 has held as follows:- “Admittedly, in the instant case, the petitioner stood retired from service on 31.07.2021 and chargesheet was served on 11/16.10.2021 and this is for the period when the petitioner served as a Registrar from 28.06.2012 to 03.10.2015, and that it is indisputedly beyond the period of four years of such institution. In the given facts and circumstances, in our considered view, the chargesheet served on the petitioner dated 11/16.10.2021 is in clear breach of the mandate of Rule 7 of Rules 1992. Consequently, the writ petition succeeds and is allowed. The chargesheet dated 11/16.10.2021 and departmental consequential proceedings initiated against the petitioner stand quashed. other The petitioner is entitled to all terminal/retiral benefits, if the same have been withheld because of pendency of the departmental inquiry, along with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date it was withheld, until actually paid.” 5.5. Placing reliance on the rules governing the field and decision as cited (supra), it is contended that the proceeding with the charges as indicated hereinabove, is not maintainable against the petitioner and just to harass the petitioner, the said proceeding has been initiated. It is accordingly contended that the proceeding initiated under Annexure-14 is required to be quashed. Page 5 of 8 // 6 // 6. Learned Addl. Govt. Advocate basing on the instruction on the other hand contended that since petitioner got the benefit of appointment as a Regular Primary School Teacher in the year 1996 without having acquired training qualification prior to 31.05.1996, his very appointment was found to be illegal and accordingly on being instructed by the Govt., the proceeding was initiated by O.P. No.4 vide Memorandum dated 19.12.2024 under Annexure-14. 6.1. It is contended that since the petitioner was not eligible to get the benefit of appointment as a regular teacher in the year 1996, the proceeding has been rightly initiated and it requires no interference. It is also contended that petitioner can very well raise all the legal points as available to him by filing his written state of defence. 7. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and considering the submissions made, this Court finds that the petitioner was initially appointed as Page 6 of 8 // 7 // a Non-formal Teacher vide order of appointment issued on 09.02.1984 under Annexure-1 and subsequently he was regularized as a Primary School Teacher vide order dated 04.04.1998 under Annexure-5. While so continuing, petitioner on attaining the age of superannuation on 30.06.2023, was allowed to retire from Govt. service. 7.1. The proceeding in question vide Memorandum dated 19.12.2024 under Annexure- 14 has been initiated by O.P. No.4 in respect of an incident of the year 1996. Placing reliance on the provisions contained under Rule-7(2) of the Rules and the decisions as cited (supra), it is the view of this Court that in respect of such an incident of the year 1996, the proceeding could not have been initiated after more than 28 years. Therefore, this Court is inclined to quash the proceeding initiated against the petitioner vide Memorandum dated Page 7 of 8 // 8 // 19.12.2024 under Annexure-14. While quashing the same, this Court allows the Writ Petition. 8. The Writ Petition accordingly stands disposed of. Orissa High Court, Cuttack Dated the 20th March, 2025/Basudev (Biraja Prasanna Satapathy) Judge Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BASUDEV SWAIN Designation: SR. STENO Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Date: 27-Mar-2025 16:52:09 Page 8 of 8