JUSTICE v. NARASINGH DATE OF HEARING
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C) NO.11162 of 2019 (An application under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India). Bhagirathi Nayak …. Petitioner -versus- Odisha State Civil Supply Corporation Ltd. and others …. Opposite Parties For Petitioner For Opposite Parties : : Mr. S. Mallik, Advocate Mr. D.Ch. Dhal, Advocate CORAM: JUSTICE V. NARASINGH DATE OF HEARING :07.09.2022 DATE OF JUDGMENT: 28.09.2022 V. Narasingh, J. 1. 2. The petitioner working as Senior Sales Manager-cum- Godown Supervisor of the Opposite Party-Odisha State Civil Supplies Corporation Limited (herein after referred to as Corporation) retired on superannuation w.e.f. 30.11.2011 at Annexure-1. Being aggrieved by the order dated 4.4.2015 at Annexure-7 directing for recovery of a sum of Rs.5,00,999/- towards W.P.(C) No.11162 of 2019 Page 1 of 11 alleged shortage value of misappropriation of quintal 311.11 Kgs.of sugar from his retirement benefits, the communication of the District Manager of the Corporation, Khordha inter alia directing for adjustment of Rs.19,89,633.07/- at Annexure-11, the office order dated 28.03.2019 at Annexure-18 directing to treat the period of suspension from 17.10.2003 to 29.05.2006 as such and the office order dated 09.05.2019 adjusting unutilized earned leave for a period of 300 days towards outstanding amount of Rs.22,16,560.00/- at Annexure-19, the present Writ Petition has been filed. 3. It is apt to state here that this is the 4th journey of the petitioner to this court. A. In as much as: WP(C) No. 13103/2007 the petitioner
Legal Reasoning
challenged the recovery shown for an amount of Rs.19,89,633/- in the LPC without any prior notice.
Decision
The said Writ Petition was disposed of on 05.03.2008 directing to consider the representation of the petitioner. B. Petitioner challenged the order of punishment dtd. 04.04.2015(Annexed as Annexure-7) in departmental proceeding on the ground that the proceedings cannot continue after retirement, in W.P.(C) No.8338 of 2015. This Court directed the petitioner to prefer appeal. It is stated that the appeal so filed is still pending. C. In WP(C) No.23819 of 2017 the petitioner sought a direction for payment of retirement benefits. This court W.P.(C) No.11162 of 2019 Page 2 of 11 at the stage of admission disposed of the said writ petition directing the Corporation to take a decision on the representation of the petitioner within a period of 6 weeks. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that no decision yet has been taken on such representation. 3A. It is further submitted that CONTC No. 1627/2018 was also disposed of at the instance of the petitioner directing the Corporation to take a final decision and comply the order within a period of 3 months. 4. It is stated that in spite of the orders of this court referred to herein above no decision has been taken either in respect of the representation or the appeal. 4A. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the Corporation Mr. Dhal that in view of the admitted pendency of the representation and appeal, this Court ought not to entertain this Writ Petition in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 4B. Per contra the learned counsel for the petitioner Mr. Mallik submits that pendency of the representation or the appeal sould not stand in the way of this Court entertaining the present W.P.(C) since the impugned orders being patently illegal and dehors the Odisha State Civil Supplies Corporation Employees Service Rules, 1993 (herein after referred to as “Rules 93”). 5. It is the grievance of the petitioner that notwithstanding the glaring inaction of the Corporation as per order dated W.P.(C) No.11162 of 2019 Page 3 of 11 09.05.2019 at Annexure-19 amount towards unutilised leave for a period of 300 days is directed to be adjusted towards an amount of alleged outstanding to the tune of Rs.22,16,560.00/-. 6. The principal ground of challenge is that the services of the petitioner is governed by the Rules 93. And, there is no provision in the said rules for continuance of departmental proceeding after retirement. It is submitted that since admittedly the petitioner retired on 30.11.2011 and the orders in the departmental proceeding were passed on 04.04.2015 at Annexure-7 and on 28.03.2019 at Annexure-18 and on 09.03.2019 at Annexure- 19, after superannuation, the said orders are a nullity and therefore basing on such orders the post retirement benefits and arrear salary due to the petitioner cannot be withheld. 7. The specific ground that there is no provision of law as per Rules 93 to continue the departmental proceeding after retirement has been taken in Para-7 of the Writ Petition which is quoted here under for convenience ready of reference; x x x x x “There is no provision of law as per to the employees’ service rules continue the departmental proceeding after retirement” x x x x x 8. In response to such specific stand the Corporation has stated thus in its counter; x x x x x“6.That the averments made by the petitioner in paragraph-7 of the writ W.P.(C) No.11162 of 2019 Page 4 of 11 the opposite parties have no petition comments. That it is respectfully submitted that the Departmental Proceeding No. 10596 dated 27.11.2003 and No. 9050 dated 03.08.2007 (Revised) has been framed against the petitioner Sri Bhagirathi Nayak, Manager-cum-Godown Sr. Supervisor by the Corporation Head Office, Bhubaneswar.” x x x x x Sales 9. To fortify his stand the petitioner has relied on the following judgments;