JUDGMENT : L. Mohapatra, J. - The petitioner in this writ application prays for quashing Annexure-5, the Memorandum of charge, the order in Annexure-7 passed by the disciplinary authority for recovery of Rs. 98,996/- from the retrial dues of the petitioner as well as the orders in Annexures-9 and 10. In Annexure-10, the petitioner has been requested to deposit an amount of Rs. 33,388/- outstanding in favour of O.F.D.C. as due from him. N. SURYA RAO V. O. F. D. CORPN. (L. MOHAPATRA, J.) 2. The case of the petitioner is that he started his career as a Mate in January 1966 in the office of opposite party No. 3. In the year 1989 he was promoted to the post of Assistant Supervisor and thereafter to the post of Sectional Supervisor. While working as Sectional Supervisor under Divisional Manager, Bhawanipatna (C-KL) Division he retired on superannuation on 30.11.2003. At the time of retirement he was being paid wage of Rs. 5,351/- . The petitioner after retirement having not received his gratuity and other retrial benefits, filed the case for release of his gratuity and the Assistant Labour Commissioner, Jeypore on 3.12.2004 disposed of the said case directing the opposite parties to pay the gratuity of Rs. 1,17,310/- along with interest at the rate of 10% per annum from 1.12.2003 to the petitioner. The petitioner received the gratuity amount but the other retirement dues like arrear increments, E.L. bill and leave salary to the tune of Rs. 67,137/- was withheld. When the petitioner started demanding the said amount from the Corporation, a Departmental Proceeding for minor punishment was initiated against him and the charge memo was served on the petitioner in October, 2005. In the said proceeding, the petitioner was called upon to file his reply. The proceeding was concluded on 29.8.2006 and the disciplinary authority imposed punishment of recovery of a sum of Rs. 98,996/- from the petitioner. After adjustment of the dues of the petitioner to the extent of Rs. 67,000/-, the balance amount was demanded to be paid in Annexure-10. Challenging the said order of punishment, this writ application has been filed. 3. The Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that no Departmental Proceeding could have been initiated against the petitioner after his retirement. Though the petitioner retired on superannuation on 30.11.2003, the Departmental Proceeding was initiated against him in 2005. Challenging the said order of punishment, this writ application has been filed. 3. The Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that no Departmental Proceeding could have been initiated against the petitioner after his retirement. Though the petitioner retired on superannuation on 30.11.2003, the Departmental Proceeding was initiated against him in 2005. Reliance is placed by the Learned Counsel on two decisions of this Court in support of such contention. One such decision is the case of Sukadev Behera Vs. M.D., OFDC Ltd.. In the said reported case, the petitioner therein retired from service on 31.3.1999 and the Disciplinary Proceeding was initiated in July, 2003. There was no provision in the pre-amended Rules to initiate such a proceeding after retirement. Such Rule was introduced by way of amendment of Rule 123 by adding a provision 123-A. The Court held that the amendment of the Rule vide 123-A can only be prospective and cannot be applied retrospectively. With the above finding, the Court quashed the Departmental Proceeding. Similar view was also taken by this Court in the case of Sri Dinabandhu Sarangi Vs. Orissa Forest Development Corporation Limited and Others, . Shri S.K. Pattanaik, the Learned Counsel appearing for the O.F.D.C. faced to the above decisions fairly submitted that the petitioner having retired prior to amendment, in absence of any provision in the pre-amended Rule for initiation of a Departmental Proceeding after retirement, the two decisions cited by the Learned Counsel for the petitioner shall apply to the facts of this case. However, he submitted that even if the order of punishment is set aside, from the record it is found that certain amount is due from the petitioner and accordingly the petitioner should be directed to pay that amount to the Corporation. 4. In view of the above two decisions and the fact that the Departmental Proceeding was initiated against the petitioner almost two years after his retirement in absence of any Rule, the initiation of the Departmental Proceeding in Annexure-5 and the order of punishment in Annexure-7 are quashed. The Corporation is directed to issue a fresh letter to the petitioner indicating the dues to be recovered from him. The Corporation is directed to issue a fresh letter to the petitioner indicating the dues to be recovered from him. After receipt of such letter, the petitioner shall be given a personal hearing and if it is found that the Corporation is to get some amount from the petitioner, the same shall be recovered from the amount due to the petitioner on retirement. 5. With the above observation, the writ application is disposed of.