RAMA CHANDA PATI Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE applicant retired from Govt. service as a senior clear on 30.04.2011 on attaining the age of superannuation. Before few days of his retirement, i.e. on 10.04.2001 a departmental proceeding was instituted against him. That continued after his retirement. The Collector, as the disciplinary authority of the applicant after his retirement, imposed penalty of reduction of 20% of pension under order at Annexure -2. The applicant preferred an appeal. The appellate authority in his order dated 16.03.05 at Annexure -3 set aside the order of the Collector, but remitted the matter to the disciplinary authority to dispose of the proceeding in accordance with law. Thereafter, the Collector issued a notice dated 27.06.2005 at Annexure -4 calling for an explanation from the applicant as to why the offence committed by him should not be dealt under Rule 15 of OCS (CCA) Rules, 1962 for infliction of major penalties as per rule. The applicant was getting Rs. 2400/ - per month as provisional pension, but that has been withheld. So, he made a representation at Arulexure -5 dated 30.8.05 for payment of provisional pension. But the respondents issued letter dated 06.09.2005 at Annexure -6 reducing the provisional pension to Rs. 1275/ - + T.I. per month. The disciplinary proceeding has not yet attained its finality. The applicant has thus filed this O.A. to direct the respondents to pay the provisional pension of Rs.2400/ - per month, which he was earlier receiving and to quash the order at Annexure -6.

(2.) A written counter has been filed by respondent Nos. 2 and 3 admitting that the applicant was getting provisional pension of Rs.2400/ - upto September 2004. But as the charges against the petitioner were grievous in nature, the Collector; Dhenkanal ordered that the petitioner should be given provisional pension at the minimum of Rs. 1275/ - + T.I. per month till finalization of the departmental proceeding.

(3.) AT the very outset it is observed that the Collector, Dhenkanal exceeds the fundamental principle of service law of O.C.S. (CCA) Rules 1962 and OCS (Pension) Rules 1992 for the reasons stated above. While the applicant was in service a departmental proceeding was instituted against him on 10.04.2001. He retired from Govt. service on 30.04.2001 on attaining the age of superannuation. After retirement the jural relationship of employer and employee ceases, but by a legal friction in accordance with Sub -rule (2) of Rule 7 of OCS (Pension) Rules 1992 the proceeding, continues. In that case if the charges against the Govt. servant are established no penalty, as prescribed under Rule 13 of O.C.S. (CCA) Rules, 1962 can be imposed by the disciplinary authority, but the Govt. under Sub -rule (l) of Rule 7 of O.C.S. (Pension) Rules 1992, can pass order for reduction or withhold of pension, gratuity or both. Thus, the Collector, who was the disciplinary authority of the applicant while in service had no power to pass an order as at Annexure -3 towards reduction of pension of the applicant. To connote, after retirement of the applicant the Collector became functus officio to impose any penalty.