Odisha State Civil Supplies Corporation Limited, Bhubaneswar vs Bhagirathi Nayak And Others

The writ appeal is restored vide order passed today in CMAPL No.291 of 2023.

The present appeal is directed against the judgment dated 28th September, 2022 passed by the learned Single Judge allowing W.P.(C) No.11162 of 2019 filed by the Respondent.

By the said impugned judgment, learned Single Judge has quashed the disciplinary proceedings which were continued against the Respondent even after his superannuation and the corresponding punishments imposed in the said proceedings. Consequentially, the present Appellant has been directed to pay all the retiral benefits to the Respondent together with simple interest @6% from the date of his retirement within a period of four months failing which there would be enhanced interest @9% till the date of payment.

Although disciplinary proceedings were initiated against the Respondent prior to his superannuation, they were not completed for well over ten years. The learned Single Judge has found that under the Odisha State Civil Supplies Corporation Employees Service Rules, 1993 (the 1993 Rules) there was no provision for continuing disciplinary proceedings against employee after his retirement.

In the present case, admittedly the Respondent superannuated on 31st November, 2011. The disciplinary proceedings continued even thereafter and concluded with the order of punishment being imposed on 4th April, 2015. Following the ratio of the decisions of the Supreme Court of India in Bhagirathi Jena v. Board of Director, O.S.F.C., (1993) 3 SCC 666 and Chandra Singh v. State of Rajasthan AIR 2003 SC 2889, the learned Single Judge concluded that in absence of any provision in the 1993 Rules, the continuance of disciplinary proceedings against the Respondent after his retirement was unsustainable in law.

Having heard learned counsel for the Appellant, the Court is unable to take a different view of the matter. Admittedly, there is no provision in the 1993 Rules that permits the continuation of the disciplinary proceedings after the retirement of the delinquent employee. Consequently, the Court is unable to find any ground to interfere with the impugned judgment of the learned Single Judge.

The appeal is accordingly dismissed.

……………………………