The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C) No.16586 of 2025 Ranjan Kumar Panigrahi …. Petitioner Mr.Prafulla Kumar Mohapatra, Adv -versus- State of Odisha & Others …. Opposite Parties Mr. U.U. Jena, AGA Order No.
Decision
CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE A.K. MOHAPATRA ORDER 19.06.2025 01. This matter is taken up through Hybrid mode. 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned counsel for the State. Perused the writ application and the documents annexed thereto. 3. By filing the present writ application, the petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs:- “It is therefore, humbly, prayed that this Hon’ble Court be graciously pleased to admit this writ application, issue notice to the Opp .parties and after hearing the counsel for the parties direct the Opposite parties to accept the voluntary retirement from Govt. service (VRS) application of the petitioner dt.30.11.2024 as per Rule-42 of OCS (Pension) Rule, 1992 as the petitioner has completed more than 27 years of qualifying Government service and already attained the age of 50 years and quash the letter date 27.2.2025 vide Annexure-5. Xx xx xx xx” Page 1 of 6 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner, at the outset, contended that the petitioner entered into Government service and joined as Peon on 30.19.1997 and thereafter appointed as A.R.I. since 2013. While working as such, a departmental proceeding was initiated against the petitioner on 01.09.2021 and in the departmental proceeding, major punishing has been imposed on the petitioner vide order dated 24.04.2023. Although the petitioner preferred an appeal against the punishment order dated 24.04.2023, the same has been disposed of in the meantime by altering the punishment. 6. While this was the position, the petitioner submitted an application for voluntary retirement on 28.08.2023. Initially, the VRS application of the petitioner was not accepted by the Collector and District Magistrate, Dhenkanal, opposite party no.3 on the ground that the appeal is pending. Since the appeal of the petitioner was disposed of in 6.2.2024, the petitioner again approached the opposite party no.3 to reconsider the decision to grant the voluntary retirement to the petitioner from service in terms of Rule 42 of The Orissa Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1992 (in short, ‘the Rules, 1992’) and submitted a fresh Page 2 of 6 application on 30.11.2024. He further submitted that by virtue of the interim order dated 27.02.2025 under Annexure-5 to the writ application, the opposite party no.3 has once again rejected the VRS application of the petitioner on the ground that a criminal case is pending against him. At this juncture, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that pendency of the criminal case shall not stand as a bar to accept the VRS application of the petitioner as there is no such provision in Rule 42 of the Rules, 1992. In course of his argument, drawing attention of this Court to the provision contained in Rule 42(2) and the note appended thereto, submitted that there is no such provision, which prohibits acceptance of the VRS application the petitioner on the ground of pendency of a criminal proceeding. He further emphatically argued that the only ground on which the VRS application of the petitioner may not be accepted by the State is pendency of a disciplinary proceeding. He further contended that the disciplinary proceeding has already been culminated in imposing punishment on the petitioner and the petitioner, having accepted such punishment, there is no bar in law to consider the case of Page 3 of 6 the petitioner and to accept the VRS application in terms of Rule- 42 of the Rules, 1992. 7. Learned counsel for the State, on the other hand, contended that although he has no specific instruction in the matter, however, he has contended that the VRS application of the petitioner has already been rejected by opposite party no.3 as a criminal case is pending against him. In such view of the matter, he submitted that the opposite party no.3 has not committed any illegality in rejecting the VRS application of the petitioner on the ground of pendency of a criminal case. 7. Having heard learned counsels for the respective parties and on a careful examination of the factual backgrounds of the case as well as documents annexed to the writ application, this Court finds that the only dispute, which is involved in the present writ application is with regard to the acceptance of the VRS application of the petitioner. VRS applications are to be considered in terms of Rule 42 of the Rules, 1992. On a close scrutiny of the provision contained in Rule-42 of the Rules, 1992, it appears that a Government servant, who has completed the qualifying service period of twenty years, is eligible to apply for Page 4 of 6 VRS. The note appended to Rule-42 provides that such an application shall generally be accepted in all cases except under two contingencies (a) where there is a disciplinary proceeding is pending against the Government employee; (b) the prosecution is contemplated or have launched in a Court of Law against the Government servant concerned. In the second case, the VRS can be accepted only with the approval of the Government. 8. In view of aforesaid legal position, this Court is of the view that the matter requires reconsideration by the opposite parties in terms of Rule-42 of the Rules, 1992. Accordingly, the impugned rejection order dated 27.2.2025 under Annexure-5 is set aside and the matter is remanded to the opposite party no.3 to consider the matter afresh and in the event any criminal proceeding is pending against the petitioner, then the opposite party no.3 shall place the matter before the Government for grant of necessary approval. Depending on the decision on the Government, the VRS application of the petitioner shall be finally dealt with by opposite party no.3. Let the entire exercise be completed within two months from the date of communication of a copy of today’s order. Page 5 of 6 9. With the aforesaid observation and direction, the writ petition stands disposed of. Issue urgent certified copy of tis order as per rules. Basu (A.K. Mohapatra) Judge Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BASUDEV NAYAK Reason: Authentication Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA : CUTTACK Date: 20-Jun-2025 16:43:22 Page 6 of 6