In the matter of the application under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution v. State of Odisha and others
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C) No.15567 of 2024 In the matter of the application under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. Pralov Parija … Petitioner - Versus - State of Odisha and others … Opposite Parties Advocate(s) appeared in this case:- --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- For Petitioner … Mr. Rudra Narayan Parija For Opposite Parties … Mr. M.R. Patra, Additional Standing Counsel (For O.P. No.1) Mr. Braja Kishore Sahoo, Advocate. (For O.P. No.3) --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- PRESENT:
Legal Reasoning
THE HONOURABLE SHRI JUSTICE ADITYA KUMAR MOHAPATRA Date of hearing- 10.04.2025 :: Date of judgment : 16.04.2025 Aditya Kumar Mohapatra, J. 1. Heard the learned counsel for the Petitioner as well as the learned counsel for the Opposite Party No.3-Orissa State Ware Page 1 of 10. Housing Corporation. Perused the pleadings of the respective parties as well as the documents annexed thereto. Counter affidavit filed by the Opposite Party No.3-Corporation in Court today is taken on record. 2. By filing the present writ petition, the Petitioner seeks to challenge the order of rejection dated 07.12.2023 passed by the Opposite Party No.2-Managing Director, Odisha State Ware Housing Corporation, Bhubaneswar as well as the order dated 01.03.2023 passed by the Opposite Party No.3-Secretary, Odisha State Warehousing Corporation, Bhubaneswar thereby withholding the retirement dues of the Petitioner to the tune of Rs.25,29,028.00 under Annexure-2 and for a further direction to the Opposite Parties to release such amount in favour of the Petitioner forthwith. 3. The case of the Petitioner, as has been pleaded in the writ petition, is that originally the Petitioner entered into the service in the year 1995 and joined as Assistant Superintendent under Opposite Party No.2-Corporation. Thereafter, on attaining the age of superannuation the Petitioner has retired from service Page 2 of 10. w.e.f. 31.07.2022. Several months after the retirement of the Petitioner from service, the Opposite Party-Corporation issued a notice of show cause to the Petitioner under Annexure-4 to the writ petition on 03.02.2023. The Petitioner filed his reply promptly on 07.02.2023. Despite the reply of the Petitioner, the Opposite Parties, denying all the allegations, have withheld the C.P.F. dues of the Petitioner to the tune ofRs.25,29,028.00 vide order dated 01.03.2023. 4. Being aggrieved by such conduct of the Opposite Parties, the Petitioner approached this Court by filing W.P.(C) No.30257 of 2023. This Court, vide order dated 04.10.2023, disposed of the said writ petition by granting liberty to the Petitioner to approach the Opposite Party No.2 by filing a detailed representation with a corresponding direction to the Opposite Party No.2 to consider the same in accordance with law and to dispose of the same within a stipulated period of time. Further, while disposing of the previous writ petition, this Court has also observed that in the event the Opposite Party No.2 found that no inquiry or proceeding has been initiated against the Petitioner and in the absence of any other legal impediment, the Opposite Party Page 3 of 10. No.2 shall take steps to disburse the retiral dues of the Petitioner
Decision
as expeditiously as possible. After disposal of the writ petition, the Petitioner approached the Opposite Parties by filing a representation on 12.10.2023 under Annexure-9 to the writ petition. 5. Learned counsel for the Opposite Party-Orissa State Ware Housing Corporation, at this juncture, contended that the representation of the Petitioner was considered pursuant to the order passed by this Court on 04.10.2023 in the earlier writ petition. He further contended that by passing a speaking and reasoned order, the representation of the Petitioner has been disposed of vide order dated 07.12.2023 under Annexure-1 to the writ petition. Learned counsel for the Opposite Party- Corporation further contended that since the Corporation has suffered a loss which very well relates to the period during which the Petitioner was In-Charge of Store, as such the loss amount is to be recovered from the Petitioner since the job of safe keeping of the stored items in the warehouse was the responsibility of the Petitioner. Page 4 of 10. 6. Learned counsel for the Opposite Party No.3 further contended that initially an opportunity was provided to the Petitioner to file his reply by issuing show cause notice to the Petitioner and it is only after considering such reply, a decision has been taken to withhold the retiral dues of the Petitioner to the tune as has been indicated hereinabove. He further contended that the aforesaid facts are evident from the order dated 07.12.2023 which has been filed as Annexure-1. In such view of the matter, learned counsel for the Opposite Party-Corporation contended that the Opposite Party-Corporation have not committed any illegality in rejecting the representation of the Petitioner. 7. In reply to the aforesaid contention of the learned counsel appearing for the Opposite Party-Corporation, learned counsel for the Petitioner emphatically argued that before issuing an order of recovery, the Opposite Parties have not conducted any proceeding. He further submitted that a show cause notice was issued to the Petitioner after several months of his retirement. Therefore, the fact that no proceeding was pending at the time of retirement of the Petitioner from service is not disputed by Page 5 of 10. anybody. Learned counsel for the Petitioner further contended that no disciplinary/departmental proceeding could have been initiated against the Petitioner after his retirement from service. 8. In the aforesaid context, learned counsel for the Petitioner referred to the judgment of this Court in Shyama Sundar Sahoo v. Odisha State Warehousing Corporation and another (W.P.(C) No.21066 of 2024 decided on 06.03.2025) and submitted before this Court that in respect of the very same Corporation and involving an identical issue, this Court has already taken a view that no proceeding can be initiated after retirement of the employee, as the same is not permissible in the relevant service rules. In paragraph-21 of the aforesaid judgment, it has been held that: “In view of the aforesaid finding that no Disciplinary Proceeding was initiated against the Petitioner either while he was in service or after his retirement, this Court has no hesitation to hold that no such proceeding could have been initiated against the Petitioner as the Regulation, 1985 does not permit initiation of any such proceeding against an employee after his retirement. Thus, this Court holds that no proceeding whatsoever has been initiated against the Petitioner before imposing a major penalty in shape of Regulation 18(1)(iv). Moreover, no penalty under Regulation -18 can be imposed without initiating a Page 6 of 10. for imposition of a major penalty. proceeding Therefore, the impugned order dated 21.08.2023 under Annexure-6 is completely without jurisdiction and the same is liable to be quashed. Accordingly, the same is hereby quashed.” Therefore, referring to the aforesaid judgment, the learned counsel for the Petitioner contended that the conduct of the Opposite Parties in withholding the retiral dues of the Petitioner to the tune as has been indicated hereinabove is illegal and arbitrary and not in conformity with the relevant service rules. 9. Learned counsel for the Petitioner further referred to a decision of this Court in the matter of Satyanarayan Sahu v. State of Odisha and others (W.P.(C) No.4141 of 2016 decided on 15.12.2022. On perusal of the said judgment, it appears that the dispute involved in the said case is somewhat similar to the facts involved in the present writ petition. In the aforesaid writ petition, the very same Corporation, as in the present matter, was the Opposite Party in the said case. In SatyanarayanSahu’s case (supra), the dispute was regarding illegal withholding of retiral dues to the tune of Rs.14,59,116/- by the Opposite Party- Corporation. The coordinate Bench of this Court, vide judgment dated 15.12.2022, after analyzing the facts and legal position in Page 7 of 10. detail, allowed the writ petition and the impugned communication dated 10.04.2014 was quashed and Opposite Parties were directed to release the retiral dues of the Petitioner within a period of four weeks along with the interest @ 10% from the date it became due till the date of actual payment. 10. Having heard the learned counsels appearing for the respective parties and on a careful analysis of the factual background of the present case, this Court is of the view that in the present writ petition, the issue that is required to be adjudicated by this Court is as to whether the conduct of the Opposite Parties in withholding a sum of Rs.25,29,028.00 is supported by any statutory sanction? Admittedly, as has been argued by the learned counsels appearing for the parties, there is no dispute that the shows cause notice was issued to the Petitioner after his retirement from service. Thus, there is no doubt in coming to a conclusion that at the time of retirement, no proceeding whatsoever was pending against the present Petitioner. Page 8 of 10. 11. Moreover, in view of the judgment of this Court referred to hereinabove, no proceeding is initiated against the Petitioner after his retirement from service. It is also settled position of law that without initiating a proceeding against the present Petitioner the Opposite Party-Corporation could not have withheld the amount as is due and admissible to the Petitioner on his retirement since such a conduct would be absolutely illegal and void. Moreover, on a careful scrutiny of the office order dated 07.12.2023, this Court observes that the justification/reasoning that has been given for withholding the retirement benefit of the Petitioner is not convincing and that on the basis of such reasoning, it cannot be said that the Petitioner is responsible for the loss, if any, sustained by the Corporation. At least there is no such finding which is of binding nature that the Petitioner is to be blamed for such loss sustained by the Corporation. 12. In view of the aforesaid analysis of facts as well as the legal position, this Court is of the view that the order dated 07.12.2023 under Annexure-1 is unsustainable in law. Similarly, the conduct of the Opposite Parties in withholding the dues of the Petitioner Page 9 of 10. is absolutely illegal as the same does not adhere to the established principle of service jurisprudence. 13. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances, this Court has no hesitation in quashing the impugned order dated 07.12.2023 under Annexure-1. Accordingly, the same is hereby quashed. Further, the Opposite Parties are directed to sanction and disburse the retiral dues of the Petitioner as is due and admissible to him within a period of six weeks from the date of communication of a certified copy of this judgment along with 6% interest thereon from the date it became due till the date of actual payment. 14. Accordingly, the writ petition stands allowed. However, there shall be no order as to costs. (AdityaKumarMohapatra) Judge Orissa High Court, Cuttack The 16th April, 2025/Debasis Aech, Secretary Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: DEBASIS AECH Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT Date: 16-Apr-2025 12:05:53 Page 10 of 10.