HIMANSU SEKHAR SAHU vs STATE OF ODISHA

Court
Odisha High Court

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

W.P.(C) No. 608 of 2024
CNR No. ODHC010010872024

In the matter of an application under Articles 226 & 227 of the
Constitution of India.
………………

Himansu Sekhar Sahu …. Petitioner

-versus-

State of Odisha & Ors. …. Opposite Parties
For Petitioner : Mr. P.C. Mahapatra, Advocate


For Opp. Parties : Mr. A. Tripathy, Addl. Govt. Advocate


PRESENT:
THE HON’BLE JUSTICE BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Date of Hearing: 02.09.2026 & Date of Judgment:02.09.2026
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Biraja Prasanna Satapathy, J .
1. This matter is taken up through hybrid mode.
2. Heard Mr. P.C. Mahapatra, learned counsel appearing for the
Petitioner and Mr. A. Tripathy, learned Addl. Govt. Advocate appearing
for the Opp. Parties.

// 2 //

3. Pursuant to order dtd.12.08.2026, learned Addl. Govt. Advocate
produced the instruction so provided by the Department in its letter
dtd.31.08.2026. The same be kept in record.
4. The present writ petition has been filed inter alia with the following
prayer:-
“It is, therefore, prayed that your Lordships' be graciously
pleased to admit the writ petition, issue rule nisi in the nature
of appropriate writ or any other writ (s) as deem fit and
proper calling upon the Opp. Parties to show cause as to why
the prayer made hereunder shall not be allowed, and if no/
insufficient cause is shown, the said rule be made absolute by
issuing writ(s) in the nature of :
The impugned disciplinary proceeding dt. 09.09.2021 at
Annexure-2 passed by the O.P. No.1 be quashed being
violative to the Rule 7(2)(b)(ii) of OCS (Pension) Rules, 1992
in the interest of justice.
AND,
The Opp. Parties be directed to exonerate the petitioner from
all charges levelled against him in the impugned proceeding
in violative to the statutory provisions of law in the interest of
justice.
AND,
Further be pleased to pass such other writ (s)/order (s) as
may deem just and proper,”
5. It is contended that since the proceeding initiated vide memorandum
dtd.09.09.2021 has been initiated in respect of an event, which is more
than 4 years prior to retirement of the Petitioner and so also the initiation
of the proceeding, the said proceeding is barred in view of the provisions
Page 2 of 7

// 3 //

contained under Rule 7(2)(b)(i) of the OCS (Pension) Rules, 1992. Rule
7 of the Rules reads as follows:-

“7. Right of Government to Withhold or Withdraw Pension-
(1) The Government reserve to themselves the right of
withholding a pension or gratuity, or both either in full or in
part, or withdrawing a pension in full or in part, whether
permanently or for specified period and of ordering recovery
from a pension or gratuity of the whole or part of any
pecuniary loss caused to the Government, if in any
departmental or judicial proceedings, the pensioner is found
guilty of grave misconduct or negligence in duty during the
period of his service including service rendered on
reemployment after retirement
Provided that the Odisha Public Service Commission
shall be consulted before any final orders are passed
Provided further that when a part of pension is withheld
/ withdrawn, the amount of such pension shall not be reduced
below the amount of minimum limit
(2) deals with procedure:
(a) If departmental proceedings were instituted while the
servant was in service, after retirement it shall be deemed to
be proceedings under this rule and continued by same
authority
(b) If not instituted while in service:
(i) shall not be instituted save with sanction of Government
(ii) shall not be in respect of any event which took place more
than 4 years before such institution
(iii) shall be conducted by such authority as Government may
direct
Page 3 of 7

// 4 //

(c) No judicial proceedings, if not instituted while the
Government servant was in service, shall be instituted in
respect of a cause of action which arose or event which took
place more than 4 years before
Explanation of Rule 7:
(a) 'serious crime' includes offence under Official Secret Act,
1923
(b) 'grave misconduct' includes communication/disclosure of
any secret official code, password, sketch, plan, etc. obtained
while holding office so as to prejudicially affect public
interest or security of
In simple meaning: Govt. can stop your full
pension/gratuity if you are found guilty of grave
misconduct, but for cases started AFTER
retirement, it can only be for events within last 4

years. ”
5.1. It is accordingly contended that since the proceeding is barred in
view of the aforesaid provision, the proceeding is required to be quashed.
Considering the stand taken in the writ petition and the challenge made,
this Court passed the following order on 12.08.2026:-
“2. Heard learned counsel appearing for the Parties.
3. It is contended that since the proceeding has been initiated
against the Petitioner vide the Memorandum dtd.09.09.2021
under Annexure-2 after retirement of the Petitioner on
30.11.2018 and that too in respect of the event of the year
2008-09, in view of the provisions contained under Rule-
7(2)(b)(i) of the OCS (Pension) Rules, 1992, the proceeding
is barred by law.
Page 4 of 7

// 5 //

4. Learned Addl. Government Advocate for the State is
directed to obtain instruction on the issue.”
6. Pursuant to such order, learned Addl. Govt. Advocate produced the
instruction so issued by the Department in Court. Basing on the
instruction it is contended that stipulation contained in Rule 7(2)(b) with
regard to limitation will be counted from the date of the knowledge of
the authority and not from the date of actual happening of the event. Para
5 of the instruction reads as follows:-
“5. Based on the views of the Law Department examining
similar matters relating to initiation of Disciplinary
Proceeding against retired officials, and subsequent
clarification of the General Administration and Public
Grievance Department on the same, wherein, they have
observed that "the limitation of four years as provided under
Sub-clause (2)(b)(ii) of Rule-7 of O.C.S (Pension) Rules,
1992 refers to the event which came to knowledge of the
authority, but not actual date of happening of that event" and
taking into account the views of General Administration
(Vigilance) Department that the date of occurrence in this
particular case is to be the date on which the event come to
the notice of the "Appointing Authority", i.e. after 16.05.2019
along with the fact that the petitioner was a retired
Government Official, a Disciplinary Proceedings vide this
Department Memorandum No. 12930/W dtd.09.09.2021 was
instituted u/r-7 of the Odisha Civil Services (Pension) Rules,
1992 r/w rule-15 of the Odisha Civil Services (CC&A) Rules,
Page 5 of 7

// 6 //

1962 against Sri Himansu Sekhar Sahu, Ex-A.E., Baliguda
West (R&B) Sub-Division, now retired AEE.”
6.1. It is accordingly contended that in view of the suggestion given by
the G.A. Department, the proceeding is not barred by time in view of the
stipulation contained in Rule 7(2)(b) of the Rules.
7. Having heard learned counsel appearing for the Parties and
considering the submission made, it is found that the impugned
proceeding was initiated against the Petitioner vide memorandum
dtd.09.09.2021 under Annexure-2 and from the article of charges so
enclosed as Annexure-II to the memorandum, it is found that the event
relates to the period from 16.03.2006 to 30.11.2010.
7.1. In view of the specific provision contained under Rule 7(2)(b)(ii) of
the Rules and the admitted fact that the proceeding has been initiated in
respect of the event for the period from 16.03.2006 to 30.11.2010, it is
the view of this Court that the proceeding is barred as per the aforesaid
provision.
7.2. Stand taken by the State that the period of limitation will be counted
from the date of knowledge is not acceptable as it is contrary to the
provisions contained under Rule 7(2)(b)(ii) of the Rules.
Page 6 of 7

// 7 //

7.3. In view of the aforesaid analysis and the admitted fact that the
proceeding has been initiated contrary to the provisions contained under
Rule 7(2)(b)(ii) of the Rules, this Court is inclined to quash the
proceeding and quash the same accordingly.
8. The writ petition accordingly stands disposed of.

(BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY)
Judge

Orissa High Court, Cuttack
nd
Dated the 2 September, 2026/Sneha
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: SNEHANJALI PARIDA
Reason: Authentication
Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack
Date: 08-Sep-2026 16:51:51
Page 7 of 7