JUDGMENT : S.C. Parija, J. - The moot question which falls for consideration in this Writ Petition is whether a departmental proceeding initiated against the Petitioner, while he was in Government service, can be continued & punishment imposed for treating his period of suspension as such, after his retirement from service, in absence of any specific rule to that effect? 2. The Petitioner joined as an officer in Orissa Judicial Service Class-II in the year 1976. While working as a Judicial Magistrate First Class, Puri, he submitted a representation dated 11.11.1990 to the High Court for expunging the adverse remarks entered in his CCR for the year 1988, using intemperate, derogative & abusive language against the counter signing officer, Shri B.N. Dash, the then District Judge, Ganjam. The language used by the Petitioner were as follows: Shri B.N. Dash, has no conception of inherent power of Orissa High Court, no conception of law & had no administrative control. He had collected molasses, ghee, cashew nuts from an advocate of Parlakhemundi & wanted to carry those articles to Berhampur in Government bus free of cost. He had corrupt dialings with an advocate named Shri S.C. Das. The District Judge was a number one liar & took false medical bills. He was showing favour to some advocates in bail matters & showing disfavour to other advocates on similar matters. He was also showing favour to S.D.J.M., Sub-Judge, as they were arranging sandal wood stick & sandal wood bars & idols for him through the Ranger of Parlakhemundi. Shri B.N. Dash has no conception of the procedure of writing C.C.R. 3. The Full Court in its meeting dated 09.09.1993 resolved to initiate departmental proceeding vide D.P. No. 4 of 1993 against the Petitioner for using intemperate, vituperative & derogatory language in his said representation dated 11.11.1990. The Petitioner was placed under suspension with effect from 03.04.1995 in the said D.P. No. 4 of 1993, as per the decision of the Full Court dated 22.03.1995. The Petitioner was issued with a memo of charges dated 24.12.1995 & he was asked to submit his written statement of defence to the said charges, explaining as to why action shall not be taken against him for casting personal aspersions against superiors, which amounts to an act of insubordination, indiscipline & gross-misconduct. 4. The Petitioner was issued with a memo of charges dated 24.12.1995 & he was asked to submit his written statement of defence to the said charges, explaining as to why action shall not be taken against him for casting personal aspersions against superiors, which amounts to an act of insubordination, indiscipline & gross-misconduct. 4. In response, the Petitioner submitted a confidential letter dated 22.01.1994 making further allegation against Shri Justice B.N. Dash & also the High Court, using similar intemperate & vituperative language, which are as follows: (a) By signing the departmental proceeding & by participating in the Full Court proceeding, Shri B.N. Dash acted against his oath of office. Shri B.N. Dash be asked to give me the authority of the President of India authorizing Shri B.N. Dash to act against his oath of office. (b) This will clearly show that Shri B.N. Dash has no conception of Section 313 Cr.P.C. (c) The Hon'ble Court may direct Shri B.N. Dash to give me the name of the Cr.P.C. book & the copy of the Cr.P.C. book in which it is written that the accused statement can only be made after the closure of the prosecution case. (d) The Hon'ble Court also supported the case of Shri B.N. Dash. It clearly shows that the Orissa High Court has no conception of 313 Cr.P.C. provisions. (e) It clearly shows that Shri B.N. Dash has no conception of interpretation of Statutes. (f) Shri B.N. Dash has no conception of promissory Estoppel. (g) Shri B.N. Dash has no conception of the principles of natural justice. (h) Shri B.N. Dash be asked to give me the copy of the newspaper. It will show that Shri B.N Dash has no administrative control over the Sub Judge. (i) When Shri B.N. Dash was the District Judge, Sundargarh, there was serious allegation of corruption against him. He was running his administration with the help of his Steno named Mathews. 5. The aforesaid remarks against Hon'ble Shri Justice B.N. Dash (who had been elevated as a Judge of Orissa High Court in the meantime on 07.01.1991), was found to be derogatory, which amounts to an act of insubordination, indiscipline & gross misconduct. Accordingly, further charges were framed & the Petitioner was again called upon to submit his written statement of defence to the said charges. Accordingly, further charges were framed & the Petitioner was again called upon to submit his written statement of defence to the said charges. The Petitioner did not submit any written defence & the High Court appointed the District Judge, Dhenkanal, as the Enquiring Officer, to enquire into the charges of insubordination, indiscipline & gross-misconduct made against the Petitioner. 6. The Enquiring Officer on completion of the enquiry came to the following findings: The delinquent during the hearing as mentioned earlier, has admitted the authorship of both the representations, contents of which, are the subject matter of the charges, in this enquiry. It is needless to emphasize that averments in both the so called representations are nothing but an embodiment of irrational, false & scurrilous allegations calculatively designed & deliberately made to denigrate the authority & the scandalous proportions they have assumed in the process, is perhaps unprecedented & appalling. The delinquent as I have already found has made personal aspersions against the authority by false, frivolous & baseless allegations & has thereby exhibited gross indiscipline. He has brought indignity to the Hon'ble Judge & the Hon'ble High Court as well, by challenging their legal competency & their fundamental conception on law. To add to it, the language used in the so-called representations are vile & the comments made therein are highly caustic & uncalled for. In the aforesaid premises, I am fully convinced & of the view that the actions of the delinquent are not the instance of conveyance of anguish, nor, it is a case of suppressed tension pouring out. It also cannot be said to be the outcome of a perplexed mind. It is a definite case of deliberate defiance of the authority, gross indiscipline & utmost insubordination. The upshot of my aforesaid discussions bearing on the charges setforth, is that, the delinquent Sri Pratap Kishore Dash, Ex-S.D.J.M., Kamakhyanagar (under suspension) is guilty of insubordination, indiscipline & gross misconduct. 7. Being aggrieved by the initiation of the disciplinary proceeding against him vide D.P. No. 4 of 1993 & placing him under suspension, the Petitioner filed Writ Petition before this Court being O.J.C. No. 15093 of 1996, praying for quashing of the said D.P. No. 4 of 1993 & also the order of his suspension. 7. Being aggrieved by the initiation of the disciplinary proceeding against him vide D.P. No. 4 of 1993 & placing him under suspension, the Petitioner filed Writ Petition before this Court being O.J.C. No. 15093 of 1996, praying for quashing of the said D.P. No. 4 of 1993 & also the order of his suspension. This Court by Order Dated 5.11.20.03 disposed of OJC No. 15093 of 1996 with the following orders: For the aforesaid reasons, we do not interfere with the initiation of the Departmental Proceeding against the Petitioner, but we direct that the Petitioner be forthwith reinstated in service. The Departmental Proceeding be finalized by the High Court as early as possible. The period of suspension of the Petitioner will be treated & the salary & allowances determined in accordance with the rules by the High Court depending upon the outcome of the Departmental Proceeding. 8. Pursuant to the order of this Court dated 05.11.2003 passed in O.J.C. No. 15093 of 1996, the Petitioner was reinstated in service on 04.02.2004. 9. Subsequently, the Review Committee consisting of the Hon'ble Chief Justice & four seniormost Hon'ble Judges of the High Court in their meeting held on 16.01.2006 reviewed the cases of judicial officers u/s 71 (a) of the Orissa Service Code, who had completed 55 years of age by 31.01.2006 or who are going to complete 55 years of age by 30.06.2006.The Review Committee, taking into consideration the CCR of the Petitioner & his entire service records came to the opinion that the Petitioner did not possess the standard of efficiency required to discharge the duties of the post, which he held & therefore, he should not be retained in service in public interest & in the interest of better administration of justice. The Review Committee accordingly recommended for his premature retirement in public interest on payment of 3 months' salary & allowances in lieu of 3 months' notice, as provided in the first proviso to Rule 71 (a) of the Orissa Service Code. 10. The said recommendation of the Review Committee was accepted by the Full Court in its meeting held on 25.01.2006, which was communicated to the State Government, for passing appropriate orders. 10. The said recommendation of the Review Committee was accepted by the Full Court in its meeting held on 25.01.2006, which was communicated to the State Government, for passing appropriate orders. The State Government in the Law Department, on the basis of the recommendation of the High Court, & in exercise of its powers conferred under the first proviso to Rule 71 (a) of the Orissa Service Code, passed Order Dated 18.02.2006 retiring the Petitioner from government service with immediate effect, on completion of age of 55 years. The Petitioner was allowed 3 months' pay & allowances in lieu of 3 months' notice. 11. Subsequently, the Full Court in its meeting dated 17.01.2008 considered the enquiry report dated 30.01.1997 in D.P. No. 4 of 1993 along with representations of the Petitioner & resolved to accept the enquiry report. Since the Petitioner had already retired from service, the period of his suspension was treated as such & no further punishment was imposed on him. The said decision of the Full Court was communicated to the Petitioner vide letter dated 25.01.2008 (Annexure-1), which is under challenge in this Writ Petition. 12. The Petitioner Shri Pratap Kishore Dash, appeared in person & submitted that as he had been compulsorily retired from Government service, on completing the age of 55 years, with effect from 18.02.2006, on the basis of the recommendation of the High Court, which was accepted by the State Government, the departmental proceeding in D.P. No. 4 of 1993 could not have been continued after his retirement & therefore, the imposition of the punishment to treat the period of suspension as such, is illegal & without jurisdiction. In this regard, it is submitted that the continuation of the disciplinary proceeding after his retirement, in absence of any specific rule to that effect, is not permissible in law. It is further submitted that the enquiry initiated against him in D.P. No. 4 of 1993 having been conducted without affording him reasonable opportunity of hearing & in violation of the principles of natural justice, the departmental proceeding is liable to be quashed. 13. It is further submitted that the enquiry initiated against him in D.P. No. 4 of 1993 having been conducted without affording him reasonable opportunity of hearing & in violation of the principles of natural justice, the departmental proceeding is liable to be quashed. 13. Learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the Opposite Parties, with reference to the counter affidavit filed by the High Court-Opposite Party No. 1, submits that the Petitioner having been compulsorily retired from Government service by the order of the State Government dated 18.02.2006, on completion of age of 55 years, as per the provisions of Rule 71 (a) of the Orissa Service Code, the Full Court in its meeting dated 17.01.2008, resolved to accept the enquiry report in D.P. No. 4 of 1993 & since the Petitioner had already retired from service, the period of his suspension to be treated as such & no further punishment need to be imposed upon him. Accordingly, it is submitted that keeping in view the serious misconduct established against the Petitioner in the departmental proceeding, the order of punishment could not be said to be illegal or excessive. With regard to the continuance of the departmental proceeding after retirement of the Petitioner from service, Learned Additional Government Advocate has referred to Rule 7 of the Orissa Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1992, in support of his plea that the departmental proceeding initiated against the Petitioner in D.P. No. 4 of 1993, while he was in service, can be continued even after his retirement, inasmuch as, the said departmental proceeding shall be deemed to be a proceeding under the said Rules & shall be continued & concluded by the concerned authority, as if the government servant continued in service. 14. In the instant case, admittedly the Petitioner has been compulsorily retired from Government service, on completion of 55 years of age, as per the order of the State Government dated 18.02.2006, issued under Rule 71 (a) of the Orissa Service Code. The departmental proceeding initiated against the Petitioner in D.P. No. 4 of 1993 continued after his retirement & the Full Court in its meeting held on 17.01.2008 resolved that since the Petitioner has already retired from service, the period of his suspension be treated as such. The departmental proceeding initiated against the Petitioner in D.P. No. 4 of 1993 continued after his retirement & the Full Court in its meeting held on 17.01.2008 resolved that since the Petitioner has already retired from service, the period of his suspension be treated as such. The question raised is, can the pending departmental proceeding be continued & punishment imposed on the Petitioner after his retirement from Government service under the provisions of the Orissa Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1992, in absence of any other specific rules to that effect? 15. On a perusal of the provisions of Rule 7 of the Orissa Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1992, It is seen that the said provision protects the right of the Government to withhold a pension or a gratuity, or both, either in fun or in part or withdraw the pension, in full or in part & 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. Sub-rule (2) provides that such departmental proceeding instituted while the Government servant was in service, shall, after his retirement, be deemed to be a proceeding under the said Rules & shall be continued & concluded by the authority by which such proceedings were commenced, in the same manner as if the Government servant had continued in service. 16. In the present case, the departmental proceeding in D.P. No. 4 of 1993 had been initiated against the Petitioner under the provisions of the Orissa Civil Services (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 1962. The order of punishment passed against the Petitioner is only to the effect that his period of suspension shall be treated as such. There is no order of the disciplinary authority i.e. the High Court, holding the Petitioner guilty of any grave misconduct or negligence in duty during the period of his service, thereby causing any pecuniary loss to the Government. Moreover, no recovery has been directed to be made from the Petitioner for causing any such pecuniary loss to the Government during his service, which is to be recovered from his pension or gratuity. Hence, the provisions of the Orissa Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1992, have no application to the case of the Petitioner. 17. Moreover, no recovery has been directed to be made from the Petitioner for causing any such pecuniary loss to the Government during his service, which is to be recovered from his pension or gratuity. Hence, the provisions of the Orissa Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1992, have no application to the case of the Petitioner. 17. The question whether a disciplinary proceeding initiated against an employee while in service, can be continued after his retirement, in absence of any specific provisions in the relevant rules to that effect, came up for consideration before the Apex Court in Bhagirathi Jena Vs. Board of Directors, O.S.F.C. and Others. The Hon'ble Court on noticing the relevant regulations opined that no specific provision existed therein for deducting any amount from the provident fund consequent to any misconduct determined in a departmental enquiry nor was there any provision for continuance of a departmental enquiry after superannuation. The Hon'ble Court observed as under: In view of the absence of such provision in the above said regulations, it must be held that the Corporation had no legal authority to make any reduction in the retiral benefits of the Appellant. There is also no provision for conducting a disciplinary enquiry after retirement of the Appellant & nor any provision stating that in case misconduct is established, a deduction could be made from retiral benefits. Once the Appellant had retired from service on 30.06.1995, there was no authority vested in the Corporation for continuing the departmental enquiry even for the purpose of imposing any reduction in the retiral benefits payable to the Appellant. In the absence of such authority, it must be held that the enquiry had lapsed & the Appellant was entitled to full retiral benefits on retirement. 18. In the case of Chandra Singh v. State of Rajasthan and Anr. AIR 2003 S.C.W.2889, the Supreme Court observed that a departmental proceeding can be continued so long as the employee is in service & in the event a disciplinary proceeding is kept pending by the employer, the employee cannot be made to retire. There must exist specific provision in the Pension Rules in terms whereof, whole or a part of the pension can be withheld or withdrawn wherefor a proceeding has to be initiated. There must exist specific provision in the Pension Rules in terms whereof, whole or a part of the pension can be withheld or withdrawn wherefor a proceeding has to be initiated. Furthermore, in absence of any specific provision for continuance of such proceeding, despite permitting the employee concerned to retire, such proceeding cannot remain in force after the retirement of the employee. 19. The above view regarding the necessity of a specific rule or regulation for continuance of a disciplinary proceeding against an employee after his retirement has been considered & affirmed in subsequent decisions of the Apex Court in the case of State of U.P. and Ors. v. Harihar Bholenath (2006) 13 SCC 460; Jaswant Singh Gill v. Bharat Cooking Coal Ltd. and Ors. (2007) 1 S.C.C.663 & Ramesh Chandra Sharma Vs. Punjab National Bank and Another, . 20. In absence of any specific provision under the relevant rules i.e. the Orissa Civil Services (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 1962 or the Orissa Service Code, the departmental proceeding in D.P. No. 4 of 1993 could not have been continued against the Petitioner after his retirement from Government service on 18.02.2006. Accordingly, no punishment could have been awarded to the Petitioner in the said departmental proceeding after his retirement from service, as the said proceeding is deemed to have lapsed with his retirement from Government service. 21. Applying the principles of law as discussed above to the facts of the present case & in absence of any specific nile authorising continuation of the departmental proceeding against the Petitioner after his retirement, we are of the considered view that the continuance of the departmental proceeding in D.P. No. 4 of 1993 against the Petitioner after his retirement from Government service with effect from 18.02.2006 & imposition of punishment, was illegal & without jurisdiction. 22. We accordingly quash the order of punishment & direct that the period of suspension of the Petitioner from service shall be treated as duty & the Petitioner shall be entitled to all the consequential financial benefits. The Writ Petition is accordingly allowed. Indrajit Mahanty, J. 23. I agree. Final Result : Allowed