Post-retirement disciplinary proceedings are barred for events occurring more than four years before institution.

The petitioner, a retired Assistant Executive Engineer, retired from service on 30 November 2018.

After his retirement, the State initiated disciplinary proceedings against him by memorandum dated 9 September 2021 under Rule 7 of the Odisha Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1992 read with Rule 15 of the Odisha Civil Services (CC&A) Rules, 1962.

The articles of charge related to events occurring between 16 March 2006 and 30 November 2010.

The petitioner challenged the proceedings on the ground that they were barred by the four-year limitation under Rule 7(2)(b)(ii) of the Pension Rules.

The State contended that the limitation period should be calculated from the date on which the competent authority acquired knowledge of the alleged misconduct, stated to be after 16 May 2019.

Whether disciplinary proceedings initiated against a retired government servant under Rule 7 of the Odisha Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1992, in respect of events occurring between 16 March 2006 and 30 November 2010, were barred by Rule 7(2)(b)(ii).

Whether the four-year period under Rule 7(2)(b)(ii) is to be computed from the date of the alleged event or from the date on which the competent authority acquired knowledge of that event.

The Court applied Rule 7(1) of the Odisha Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1992, which permits withholding or withdrawal of pension or gratuity where a pensioner is found guilty of grave misconduct or negligence during service.

Under Rule 7(2)(b), where departmental proceedings were not instituted while the employee was in service, they require Government sanction, cannot relate to an event occurring more than four years before their institution under Rule 7(2)(b)(ii), and must be conducted by the authority directed by Government.

The Court held that the statutory expression “event which took place” refers to the date or period of the alleged occurrence, not the date on which the authority acquired knowledge of it.

The disciplinary memorandum was issued on 9 September 2021, after the petitioner’s retirement, but the charges concerned events occurring from 16 March 2006 to 30 November 2010.

Since those events were substantially more than four years before the institution of the proceedings, Rule 7(2)(b)(ii) expressly prohibited their initiation.

The State’s argument that limitation commenced only upon discovery or knowledge of the alleged misconduct was rejected because it would substitute “date of knowledge” for the rule’s express reference to the event “which took place”.

Administrative instructions or departmental interpretations could not override the statutory limitation prescribed by the Pension Rules.

The impugned proceedings were consequently quashed, and the writ petition was disposed of accordingly.