STATE OF ORISSA Vs. PRABODH KUMAR PAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The seminal question that hinges for our consideration is as to whether disciplinary proceeding can be initiated against the opposite party, a retired Government employee, two years after his retirement.

(2.) The opposite party had filed an original application being O.A. No.1511 of 2010 before the Orissa Administrative Tribunal, Bhubaneswar praying therein to quash the Memorandum dated 11.11.2010 along with Article of charges and Statement of imputation vide Annexure-9 to the O.A. Adumbrated in brief the case of the opposite party is that while he was functioning as Chief Electrical Inspector (T&D), Orissa, Bhubaneswar, he retired from service on 31.10.2008 on attaining the age of superannuation.

(3.) The further case of the opposite party is that after getting notice from the learned Tribunal, petitioner no. 1 initiated a disciplinary proceeding against him in respect of the events, which took place more than nine years before institution of the proceeding and communicated the memorandum along with articles of charges and statement of imputation vide memo No. 151(2) dated 11.11.2010 made Annexure-9 to the O.A. It is further submitted that the initiation of departmental proceeding against him for the events, which took place during the financial years 2001-02 and 2002-03 is bad in law, inasmuch as the same was initiated after lapse of nine years of the date of event, more so, two years after his retirement. Since his case does not come under the ambit of Rule 7(2)(b)(ii) of the Orissa Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1992 (hereinafter referred to as "Pension Rules"), the departmental proceeding initiated against him is liable to be quashed.