Biranchi Narayan Parija Vs State of Odisha — Orissa HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

Biranchi Narayan Parija Vs State of Odisha — Orissa HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

None to the appellant; writ appeal dismissed as sans merit; all pending interlocutory application(s) stand disposed of; no order as to costs.

Issue for consideration

Whether the appellant, having obtained the substantial relief claimed in the writ petition, is an aggrieved person entitled to maintain the writ appeal. +2 more

Court's answer

No ground warranting interference in the impugned order; the writ appeal is sans merit and is dismissed.

Ratio / Principle

There is no illegality and/or infirmity in the Single Bench quashing the notice contemplating disciplinary proceeding, since the sanction had been accorded by the Government under a different provision (OCS (Pension) Rules) than the provision under which the Collector issued the notice (OCS (CCA) Rules).

Key takeaways

Where the sanction is accorded by the Government after superannuation under a specific provision, the initiation of the departmental proceeding cannot be done taking shelter under different provisions.ratio¶22
Where the subsequent initiation is found to be per se illegal, the sanction remains valid and the incident is within the period provided in the Rules, there is no fetter on the Single Bench making such direction and/or order while disposing of the writ petition.ratio¶22

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ Appeal (Orissa High Court, Division Bench) - Maintainability and scope of Single Bench direction - Appellant had obtained his substantial relief in the writ petition, wherein the memorandum dated 31.01.2023 issued by the Collector, Puri under Rule 15 of the Odisha Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1962 was quashed; he challenged only the direction permitting the authorities to proceed on the basis of the Government sanction dated 27.12.2022 under Rule 7(2)(b)(i) of the Odisha Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1992. Held: (i) no illegality or infirmity in the Single Bench quashing the notice, as the sanction stood under a different provision than the one under which the Collector issued the notice; (ii) where sanction is accorded after superannuation under a specific provision, initiation cannot take shelter under different provisions; (iii) where the subsequent initiation is per se illegal, the sanction remains valid and the incident is within the period prescribed (including the four-year bar under Rule 7(2)(b)), the Single Bench was not fettered in making such direction; (iv) no ground for interference - writ appeal dismissed; pending interlocutory applications disposed of; no costs.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK WA No.394 of 2026

…. Biranchi Narayan Parija Appellant

Mr. Ramakrishna Bisoi, Advocate

-versus-

State of Odisha and another

…. Respondents Ms. Biswabara Dash, ASC

CORAM:

THE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE AND

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE MURAHARI SRI RAMAN

ORDER

Order No.

06.04.2026

At the first blush we were skeptical, whether the appellant can be said to be an aggrieved person as we find that the substantial relief claimed in the writ petition was granted by the Single Bench.

However, learned counsel appearing for the appellant submits that while quashing the impugned notice contemplating to initiate a proceeding against the appellant, the Single Bench has directed the authorities to proceed on the basis of the relevant provisions, which ought not to have been granted as the Court cannot confer any right on the authorities to do a thing as the said authority is required to act within the purview of the relevant statutory provisions.

The genesis of the dispute originated from a memorandum dated 31^st January, 2023 issued by the Collector, Puri contemplating to hold an enquiry against the appellant on attaining the age of superannuation under Rule 15 of the Odisha Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1962

Page 1 of 3

(for short, “the OCS (CCA) Rules”). The appellant contends that the said Rule is not applicable after the attainment of superannuation and, therefore, cannot have any legal standing.

In course of hearing of the writ petition, the attention of the Single Judge was drawn to a sanction of the Government in instituting a proceeding against the appellant under Rules 7(2)(b)(i) of the Odisha Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1992 (for short, “the OCS (Pension) Rules”). Since the sanction was accorded by the Government under a different provision and the notice contemplating to institute disciplinary proceeding appears to have been conducted by the Collector under different provisions of the Rules, the Single Bench proceeded to quash the said notice, which we do not find any illegality and/or infirmity therein.

Rule 7(2)(b) of the OCS (Pension) Rules postulates that the Departmental Proceeding, as referred in sub-rule(1) of Rule 7 thereof, if not instituted during the service tenure of the Government servant, shall not be instituted save with the sanction of the Government. It further provides that if the incident or the circumstances leading to a misconduct is dated preceding four years from the date of the institution, there is absolute bar/prohibition in instituting and/or initiating such proceeding. The explanation appended to Rule 7 of the OCS (Pension) Rules defines the institution of the Departmental Proceedings. The appellant appears to have misconstrued the said direction for the simple reason that the writ petition was allowed quashing the memorandum dated 31^st January, 2023 and did not quash the sanction accorded by the Government on 27^th December, 2022. The Single Bench noticed that if the sanction is accorded by the

Page 2 of 3

Government after the appellant attained the superannuation under a specific provision, the initiation cannot be done taking shelter under the different provisions. In the event, the subsequent initiation is found to be per se illegal and the sanction remained valid and the incident is within the mischief of the period provided in the said Rules, we do not find any fetter in making such direction and/or order by the Single Bench while disposing of the writ petition.

We, thus, do not find any ground warranting interference in the impugned order. Accordingly, the writ appeal, sans merit, is dismissed. As a result of disposal of the writ appeal, all pending Interlocutory Application (s), if any, shall stand disposed of, but in the circumstances there shall be no order as to costs.

(Harish Tandon) Chief Justice

(M.S. Raman) Judge

MRS/Laxmikant

Signature Not Verified

Digitally Signed Signed by: LAXMIKANT MOHAPATRA Designation: SENIOR STENOGRAPHER Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Date: 07-Apr-2026 16:35:47

Page 3 of 3