JUDGMENT : 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. The State of Odisha as petitioners has challenged the order dated 17.5.2013 passed in O.A. No. 893 of 2012 by the State Administrative Tribunal, Odisha, Bhubaneswar. 2. The opposite party as applicant approached the Tribunal for sanction, disburse and release of regular pension. DCRG, commuted value of pension and arrear pension to him within a stipulated time along with 18% interest on the unpaid amount on differed heads as mentioned above from the date of entitlement till the date of actual payment made by the authorities. It was further prayed to direct the authorities to grant an amount of Rs. 10,000/- as litigation cost and the cost for suffering of the applicant for none of his fault. 3. The Tribunal by the impugned order found that the opposite party was superannuated on 31.10.2011 while working as F.A.-cum-Special Secretary to Government, Higher Education Department, a disciplinary proceeding was initiated against him by order dated 21.9.2011. A copy of the said proceeding was served on the applicant on 2.12.2012. The opposite party, therefore, pleaded before the Tribunal that there was no disciplinary proceeding pending against him on the date of retirement but the State has refused to sanction regular pension and other pensionary benefits. The Tribunal considering Rule 66(1) of the O.C.S. (Pension) Rules, 1992, which provides for grant of provisional pension where a departmental or judicial proceeding is pending, came to the conclusion that the said rule is not applicable in respect of the petitioner as on the date of his superannuation, no departmental or judicial proceeding was pending against him. The Tribunal placed reliance on a decision of this Court in the case of Brajasundar Patnaik Vs. Government of Orissa and Others, and ultimately allowed the Original Application directing the petitioners-State to sanction regular pension, DCRG as per Rule 49(5) of the OCS (Pension) Rules, 1992, commuted value of pension and other retiral benefits as admissible to the opposite party-applicant and disburse the same to him within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of the said order. Being aggrieved by the said order of the Tribunal, the State has approached this Court in the present writ petition. 4. Mr. Being aggrieved by the said order of the Tribunal, the State has approached this Court in the present writ petition. 4. Mr. Sangram Das, learned counsel for the petitioners-State vehemently urged that a disciplinary proceeding was initiated against the opposite party before his retirement for which the Tribunal has erred in holding that there was no proceeding pending on the date of his retirement. 5. Rule-7 of the OCS (Pension) Rules, 1992 provides as follows: "7. Right of Government to Withhold or Withdraw Pension-- (1) The Government reserve to themselves the right of withholding a pension or gratuity, or both either in full or in part, or withdrawing a pension in full or in part, whether permanently or for specified period and of ordering recovery from a pension or gratuity of the whole or part of as 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 including service rendered on re-employment after retirement. Provided that the Orissa Public Service Commission shall be consulted before any final orders are passed. Provided, further that when a part of pension is withheld/withdrawn, the amount of such pension shall not be reduced below the amount of minimum limit. (2)(a) Such departmental proceed in referred to in sub-rule (1), if instituted while the Government servant was in service, whether before his retirement or during his re-employment, shall, after the final retirement of the Government servant, be deemed to be a proceeding under this rule and shall be continued and concluded by the authority by which they were commenced in the same manner as if the Government servant had continued in service. Provided that when the departmental proceedings are instituted by an authority subordinate to Government that authority shall submit a report recording its findings to the Government. Provided that when the departmental proceedings are instituted by an authority subordinate to Government that authority shall submit a report recording its findings to the Government. (b) such departmental proceedings as referred to in sub-rule (1) if not instituted while the Government servant was in service, whether before his retirement or during his re-employment-- (i) shall not be instituted save with the sanction of Government; (ii) shall not be in respect of any event which took place more than four years before such institution; and (iii) shall be conducted by such authority and in such place as the Government may, direct and in accordance with the procedure applicable to departmental proceedings in which an order of dismissal from service could be made in relation to the Government servant during his service, (c) 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 look place, more than four years before such institution. (d) In the case of Government servant who has retired on attaining the age of superannuation or otherwise and against whom any departmental or judicial proceedings are instituted or where departmental proceedings are continued under Clauses (a) and (b), a provisional pension as provided in rule-66 shall be sanctioned. (e) Where the Government decide not to withhold or withdraw pension but order recovery of pecuniary loss from pension, the recovery shall not ordinarily be made at a rate exceeding one-third of the pension admissible on the date of retirement of a Government servant. Explanation--For the purpose of this rule- (a) Departmental proceedings shall be deemed to be instituted on the date on which the statement of charges are issued to the Government servant or pensioner, or if the Government servant has been placed under suspension from the date of his suspension; and (b) Judicial proceedings shall be deemed to be instituted-- (i) in the case of criminal proceedings, on the date on which the complaint or report of a police officer, of which the Magistrate takes cognizance, is made; and (ii) in the case of civil proceedings, on the date of presentation of the plaint in the Court. 6. 6. From the reading of the Explanation (a) to the aforesaid rules, it is clear that the departmental proceeding shall be deemed to be instituted on the date on which the statements of charges are issued to the Government servant or pensioner. He, therefore, argued that on 21.9.2011, the charges having been framed and issued to the opposite party-applicant, it should he held that the departmental proceeding was initiated on the said date when the opposite party was still in service. 7. However on verifying the records produced by the learned counsel for the petitioners-State, it is seen that on 21.9.2011, the Finance Department framed the charges along with the statement of imputation, which was sent to the Department of Higher Education to be served on the opposite party, but the said charges along with the statement of imputation were admittedly served on the opposite party on 2.12.2012 i.e. after the date of his superannuation. 8. Though Mr. Das, learned counsel for the petitioners-State submits that the charges along with the statement of imputation were issued on 21.9.2011 when the opposite party was in service, but no document was either produced before the Tribunal nor before this Court to show that after the Finance Department communicated the charges along with the statement of imputation to the Department of Higher Education for being served on the opposite party, the Department of Higher Education has either issued or served the same on the opposite party before his superannuation on 31.10.2011. He, however, contended that once the charges were issued, as per the language of the Rule-7 of the OCS (Pension) Rules, 1992, it should be admitted that the departmental proceeding was initiated against the opposite party with effect from 21.9.2011, which is prior to his retirement. He relied upon the decision in the case of Delhi Development Authority Vs. H.C. Khurana, 9. The moot question, therefore, arises for consideration is what would be meant by the phrase ''statement of charges are issued to the Government servant or pensioner" occurring in Explanation (a) in Rule-7 of the OCS (Pension) Rules, 1992. 10. In the case of Delhi Development Authority Vs. H.C. Khurana, the Hon'ble Supreme Court while considering the meaning of the word "issued" held that the meaning of the said word "issued" has to be gathered from the context in which it is used. 10. In the case of Delhi Development Authority Vs. H.C. Khurana, the Hon'ble Supreme Court while considering the meaning of the word "issued" held that the meaning of the said word "issued" has to be gathered from the context in which it is used. It was further held that the service of the charge-sheet is a consequence of the decision to initiate a disciplinary proceeding and such service on the Government servant follows the decision to initiate disciplinary proceeding which does not precede or coincide with that decision. The delay, if any, in service of the charge-sheet to the Government servant, after it has been framed and dispatched, does not have the effect of delaying initiation of the disciplinary proceeding, inasmuch as information to the Government servant of the charges framed against him, by service of the charge-sheet, is not a part of the decision-making process of the authorities for initiating the disciplinary proceeding. The contrary view would defeat the object by enabling the Government servant, if so inclined, to evade service and thereby frustrate the decision and get promotion in spite of that decision. The above conclusion of the Hon'ble Supreme Court was drawn on the facts of the said case which involved the question of promotion of the respondent therein. 11. Mr. Routray, learned senior counsel appearing for the opposite party, however, urged that it is well settled in law that the departmental enquiry can take place only after the charge-sheet is drawn up and served upon the delinquent and the latter's explanation is obtained. He relied upon the decisions in the cases of Union of India and Others Vs. Dinanath Shantaram Karekar and Others, and Managing Director, Uttar Pradesh Warehousing Corporation and Another Vs. Vijay Narayan Vajpayee, 12. In view of the distinguishable facts, the decision in Delhi Development Authority Vs. H.C. Khurana, cannot be made applicable to the facts of the present case. In the case of Union of India and Others Vs. Dinanath Shantaram Karekar and Others, the Hon'ble Supreme Court categorically laid down that where the disciplinary proceedings are intended to be initiated by issuing a charge-sheet, its actual service is essential as the person to whom the charge-sheet is issued is required to submit his reply and, thereafter, to participate in the disciplinary proceedings. In the case of Managing Director, Uttar Pradesh Warehousing Corporation and Another Vs. In the case of Managing Director, Uttar Pradesh Warehousing Corporation and Another Vs. Vijay Narayan Vajpayee, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the facts of the said case also held that a regular departmental enquiry takes place only after the charge-sheet is drawn up and served upon the delinquent and the latter's explanation is obtained. 13. It is, therefore, clear that the phrase "the date on which the statement of charges are issued to the Government servant or pensioner" should be interpreted as "the date on which the charges are received by the Government servant or pensioner" as the Government servant or pensioner, who was charge-sheeted, is required to file his show cause. 14. In such view of the matter, unless the charge-sheet/statement of imputation is served on the delinquent, it cannot be said to have been issued and the date of dispatch of such charge-sheet/statement of imputation cannot be held to be the date on which the departmental proceeding is initiated. 15. In view of the above discussion, this Court finds no error to have been committed by the Tribunal in passing the impugned order. This writ petition being devoid of merit stands dismissed. Urgent certified copy of this order be granted on proper application. Final Result : Dismissed