HC quashes post-retirement action against traffic inspector | Bhubaneswar News
Cuttack: Orissa high court has quashed disciplinary proceedings against a transport department employee nearly a year and a half after his retirement, terming it as “altogether impermissible” and “unsustainable”.
Dhaneswar Nayak retired as a traffic inspector under State Transport Authority (Cuttack) on Oct 31, 2022. Four days before his retirement, the SP of vigilance cell, Cuttack, submitted a draft memorandum of charges against him to the transport commissioner, which was forwarded to the department on Nov 16, 2022.
Subsequently, disciplinary proceedings were initiated with govt sanction on Feb 21, 2024. The allegations related to a case registered by the vigilance on April 13, 2010, regarding the unauthorised use of a seized vehicle for the illegal transportation of iron ore.
Nayak challenged the departmental proceedings in a petition filed on Feb 28, 2024. Advocate Gyana Ranjan Sethi argued on Nayak’s behalf. Since the petitioner is retired, the continuation of the proceedings serves no purpose other than penalising him without basis. Continuing such time-barred proceedings would cause unnecessary harassment, violating principles of natural justice and equity, Sethi contended.
While quashing the disciplinary proceedings recently, the bench of Justice S K Panigrahi ruled that the initiation of disciplinary proceedings against Nayak, after a lapse of 12 years and post-retirement, “is manifestly unsustainable in law”.
“Not only did a full 12 years elapse before the machinery of discipline was belatedly set into motion, but, in a further affront to established principles of law, this course of action was embarked upon only after the petitioner already crossed the threshold into retirement,” Justice Panigrahi observed.
“In order to impose such a burden upon a man who laid down his labours, who stands at the threshold of his twilight years, no longer in the service of the state but in quiet expectation of repose, is to offend the very sense of justice upon which the law is built,” Justice Panigrahi observed in his Jan 30 order.
“Retirement is not a mere cessation of duty; it is the long-awaited moment when a lifetime of toil yields its rightful peace. To summon him back into the arena, to force him to bear the weight of accusations long past, is not merely a hardship, it is a palpable wrong,” he added.
“By the clear dictate of the Orissa Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1992, the threshold of four years has long since passed. The sands of time, unhalted by administrative inertia, rendered the initiation of proceedings not merely tardy but altogether impermissible,” Justice Panigrahi further ruled.
Rule 7 of the Orissa Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1992 prescribes that such proceedings must not pertain to events occurring more than four years before their institution.
Dhaneswar Nayak retired as a traffic inspector under State Transport Authority (Cuttack) on Oct 31, 2022. Four days before his retirement, the SP of vigilance cell, Cuttack, submitted a draft memorandum of charges against him to the transport commissioner, which was forwarded to the department on Nov 16, 2022.
Subsequently, disciplinary proceedings were initiated with govt sanction on Feb 21, 2024. The allegations related to a case registered by the vigilance on April 13, 2010, regarding the unauthorised use of a seized vehicle for the illegal transportation of iron ore.
Nayak challenged the departmental proceedings in a petition filed on Feb 28, 2024. Advocate Gyana Ranjan Sethi argued on Nayak’s behalf. Since the petitioner is retired, the continuation of the proceedings serves no purpose other than penalising him without basis. Continuing such time-barred proceedings would cause unnecessary harassment, violating principles of natural justice and equity, Sethi contended.
While quashing the disciplinary proceedings recently, the bench of Justice S K Panigrahi ruled that the initiation of disciplinary proceedings against Nayak, after a lapse of 12 years and post-retirement, “is manifestly unsustainable in law”.
“Not only did a full 12 years elapse before the machinery of discipline was belatedly set into motion, but, in a further affront to established principles of law, this course of action was embarked upon only after the petitioner already crossed the threshold into retirement,” Justice Panigrahi observed.
“In order to impose such a burden upon a man who laid down his labours, who stands at the threshold of his twilight years, no longer in the service of the state but in quiet expectation of repose, is to offend the very sense of justice upon which the law is built,” Justice Panigrahi observed in his Jan 30 order.
“Retirement is not a mere cessation of duty; it is the long-awaited moment when a lifetime of toil yields its rightful peace. To summon him back into the arena, to force him to bear the weight of accusations long past, is not merely a hardship, it is a palpable wrong,” he added.
“By the clear dictate of the Orissa Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1992, the threshold of four years has long since passed. The sands of time, unhalted by administrative inertia, rendered the initiation of proceedings not merely tardy but altogether impermissible,” Justice Panigrahi further ruled.
Rule 7 of the Orissa Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1992 prescribes that such proceedings must not pertain to events occurring more than four years before their institution.
