JUDGMENT : P.K. Mohanty, J. - Petitioner calls in question the criminal proceeding in G. R. Case No. 29 of 1994(V) in the court of Special Judge (Vigilance), Berhampur u/s 13(2) read with section 13(1)(c) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and prays for quashing the same, the proceeding being illegal and beyond the prescribed period of limitation as prescribed under the Orissa Pension Rules. 2. The short facts of the petitioner's case is that he was serving in the cadre of O. A. S.(I), Senior Branch and retired from Government service on 31-7-1997. While in service the house of the petitioner was searched by the Vigilance Squad on 30-7-1994 on the strength of a search warrant issued by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Berhampur. In course of search, the Vigilance Squad seized all movable properties, documents, records and files along with cash. The Investigating Officer submitted the F. I. R. along with a statement showing the income, expenditure and assets of the petitioner for the period between 1963 September and 1994 July and intimated the dis-proportionate assets acquired by the petitioner. A. G. R. Case No. 29 of 1994 u/s 13(1)(c) of the Prevention of Corruption Act was registered and the charge-sheet was submitted on 13-10-1998 against the petitioner u/s 13(2) read with section 13(1)(c) of the Prevention of Corruption/Act (hereinafter, called as "P.C. Act") for possessing disproportionate, assets. The cognizance of the offence was taken by the learned. Special Judge (Vigilance) on 11-2-1999. 3. Sri Manoj Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the order of cognizance taken by the learned special Judge (Vigilance) is illegal and is in violation of Rule 7(2)(c) of the Orissa Pension Rules, 1992, since a period of four years is fixed under the Pension Rules for initiation of any criminal proceeding in respect of a Government servant. It is his contention that since the period of alleged offence is between 1963 and 1994 and the F. I. R. was lodged on 25-8-1994 after which charge- sheet was submitted on 13-10-1998 and in the meantime the petitioner superannuated from service, on 31-7-1997, the Court could not have taken cognizance of the offence. 4. Rule 7(2)(c) of the Orissa Pension Rules. 4. Rule 7(2)(c) of the Orissa Pension Rules. 1992 may be quoted, hereunder: No judicial proceedings, if not instituted while the Government servant was in service, whether before his retirement or during his re-employment shall be instituted in respect of a cause of action Which arose or in respect of an event which took place, more than four years before such institution." An explanation has been appended to the rule and according to explanation (b) judicial proceedings shall be deemed to be instituted in case of the criminal proceeding on the date on which the complaint or report of a police officer of which the Magistrate takes cognizance is made. It is the contention of the learned counsel that since the report of a police officer basing on which the Magistrate takes cognizance is the date for the purpose of determining the period of four years as provided under the aforesaid Pension Rules on the date the charge-sheet was submitted i. e. on 13-10-1998, a period of more than four years had elapsed, no proceeding could have been instituted. Learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to section 2(r) of the Cr. P. C. to contend that the police report means the report forwarded by the police officer to the Magistrate under sub-section (2) of section 173. Section 173 speaks of report of police officer on completion of investigation Learned counsel therefore, submits that since judicial proceeding will be deemed to be instituted in case of a criminal proceeding like the present one on the date on which the complaint or report of a police officer of which the Magistrate takes cognizance is made, such a judicial proceeding or criminal proceeding could not have been instituted in view of the bar contemplated under Rule 7(2)(c) of the Orissa Pension Rules. 5. Sri J.K. Mishra, learned Standing Counsel for the Vigilance Department, however, submits that the Orissa Pension Rules, more particularly Rule 7(2)(c) having been framed under Article 309 of the Constitution of India, the provision thereof cannot supersede or override the provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code inasmuch as the Code does not prescribe any period of limitation for institution of criminal prosecution in respect of the offences alleged. It is, therefore, the contention of Sri Misra that even for the sake of argument, if it is taken that Rule 7(2)(c) creates in fact a bar for initiation of a criminal proceeding, the same would not have any effect, for a prosecutor under the Prevention of Corruption Act. 6. In view of the submission made by the learned counsel for the parties, the short question that needs determination is as to whether the bar created for institution of a judicial/criminal proceeding by the State Government, under Rule 7(2)(c) of the Orissa Civil Service (pension) Rules, 1992 against a retired Government, servant, would govern the field and be treated as a period of limitation for such prosecution in terms of the prevention of Corruption Act under the Code of Criminal Procedure. 7. Chapter XXXVI of the Code of Criminal Procedure, prescribes period of limitation for taking cognizance of certain offences. u/s 468(1) of the Code, no court shall take cognizance of an offence of the category specified in sub-section (2) after the period of limitation. Under Sub-section (2) of section 468, the period of limitation for launching Criminal Proceeding and of taking cognizance, in case of an offence punishable with fine only is six months, one year, if the offence is punishable with imprisonment for a term not exceeding one year and three years, if the offence is punishable for a term of imprisonment exceeding one year but not exceeding 3 years. Thus, for offences punishable with imprisonment for a term exceeding three years, there is no period of limitation for taking cognizance under the Code of Criminal Procedure. An offence u/s 13(2) is punishable with a term of imprisonment of a minimum of one year but which may extend to seven years and fine and therefore, there is no prescribed period of limitation for either launching a criminal proceeding or for taking cognizance of such an offence by the Court. But under Rule 7(2)(c) of the Orissa Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1992 in effect prescribes a period of four years for instituting a judicial/criminal proceeding for a cause of action, which arose or in respect of an event which took place, more than four years of his retirement, if it has not been instituted, when he was in service. But under Rule 7(2)(c) of the Orissa Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1992 in effect prescribes a period of four years for instituting a judicial/criminal proceeding for a cause of action, which arose or in respect of an event which took place, more than four years of his retirement, if it has not been instituted, when he was in service. Orissa Civil Service (Pension) Rules, 1992 is a Rule framed by the State Government under the powers vested in it under the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution of India. In view of the fact that no period of limitation has been prescribed under the Code of Criminal Procedure, a law enacted by the parliament, the restriction of launching a prosecution envisaged under the Rule framed by the State Government under Article 309 of the Constitution of India, cannot stand as a bar for initiating a criminal proceeding u/s 13 of the Prevention of Corruption Act. In absence of a period of limitation stipulated in the Code, such a restriction cannot be legally imposed for institution of a judicial or criminal proceeding against a delinquent Government servant even after his retirement, by virtue of a rule framed under Article 309 of the Constitution like the Orissa Civil Service (Pension) Rules. In this contest, a reference can be made to the decision of the Apex Court in Kalicharan Mahapatra Vs. State of Orissa, wherein the Apex Court held that a public servant who committed an offence mentioned in the Act, while he was a public servant can be prosecuted with the sanction as contemplated u/s 19 of the Act, if continues to be a public servant when the Court takes cognizance of the offence. But if ceases to be a public servant, no sanction under the Act would be necessary and the Court can take cognizance without any sanction. Similarly, in case of State of Kerala Vs. V. Padmnabhan Nair, following Kali Charan's case, held that an accused facing prosecution for offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act cannot claim any immunity on the ground of want of sanction if he is ceased to be public servant, when the court took cognizance. In the result, I find no merit in this petition, which is accordingly dismissed. 8. Petition dismissed. Final Result : Dismissed