S. N. Prasad, J. This application has been filed by the State of Odisha assailing the order dtd.15.11.2014 passed in Original Application No.1502 of 2013 whereby and where under the order of punishment has been held to be not maintainable and accordingly quashed with a direction to the respondent authorities to settle the claim of the applicant as due and admissible to her within a stipulated period reserving liberty to the State – respondent to take appropriate action against the applicant in accordance with Rule / Law, if so advised. 2. The brief fact of the case is that the applicant before the Tribunal, the opposite party herein, while working as Lecturer in Economics in Rajendra (Auto) College, Bolangir fell ill for which she remained on leave from 11.09.2000, as she did not recover from illness, she extended her leave from 21.9.2000 to 22.1.2001 and submitted her application to the Principal of the College, the leave was refused, she again applied for extension from 22.11.2000 and thereafter from time to time till 30.10.2006. The Principal, Rajendra (Auto) College, Bolangir vide his letters dtd.26.9.2005 and 15.9.2006 recalled the applicant to resume duty. While on leave the applicant was transferred from Rajendra (Auto) College, Bolangir to Rourkela College vide office order No.33422, dtd.21.8.2004 by the respondent no.1 and in pursuance to the said order of transfer, the applicant joined in Rajendra (Auto) College, Bolangir on 31.10.2006 and was relieved on the same day to join in her new place of posting at Rourkela Government College and accordingly joined on 14.11.2006. The Principal informed the Government and the Director, Higher Education vide his letter No.1537 dtd.14.11.2006 and the applicant continued to discharge her duties, a departmental proceeding under Rule 15 of the Orissa Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1962 (herein after referred to as ‘the Rules, 1962’) was initiated against her, she was asked to give reply in pursuance to the memorandum of charge which pertains to unauthorized absence, i.e. violation of Rules 72(2) of the Orissa Service Code and disobedience of orders, i.e. Rule 4 of Orissa Government Servant’s Conduct Rules, 1959. The applicant submitted her written statement of defence denying the charges, but the Director, Higher Education, who had been appointed as the Inquiring Officer to enquire into the charges had submitted enquiry report after hearing the applicant who had participated in the enquiry, but according to the applicant she had not been provided with reasonable opportunity to defend herself, but however, the enquiry was concluded and communicated to the applicant with a direction to make representation, if any, on the finding of the inquiring officer, the applicant submitted her representation on 24.9.2011 stating that the proceeding is not maintainable under the provision of the Rules 1962 since she has retired from Government service w.e.f. 31.08.2011, but without considering this aspect of the matter second show cause notice was issued to her treating 11.9.2000 as the deemed date of resignation and proposed for removal from service w.e.f. 11.9.2000, i.e. the date from which the applicant has remained unauthorizedly absent and accordingly passed the order of removal with retrospective effect from 11.9.2000. According to the applicant the order of removal is absolutely illegal and without any basis on the ground that the date when the order has been passed, i.e. on 25.2.2013 passing the order of removal from service with retrospective effect from 11.09.2000 is not permissible since there is no provision in the Service Code or Service Jurisprudence to put an employee under dismissal or removal with retrospective effect and further on the ground that the applicant has already been superannuated from service, w.e.f. 31.08.2011 and as such the date when she has retired from service the relationship of master and servant ends hence the proceeding initiated under the provision of Rules 1962 will not be maintainable, but without appreciating this aspect of the matter the proceeding continued under the provision of Rules, 1962 and the order of removal has been passed, that too with retrospective effect which is without any jurisdiction and without any authority of law. 3. 3. The case of petitioner – State is that the departmental proceeding was initiated against the applicant – opposite party herein while she was in service and as such there is no bar to continue with the proceeding, which will be treated as proceeding under Rule 7 of the Orissa Civil Service Pension Rules, 1992 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Rules, 1992), since the applicant remained absent for a period of more than 5 years, the proviso under Rule 72 of Orissa Service Code has been rightly invoked and the order of removal is in accordance with the statutory rules, thus there is no scope to interfere with the order of removal passed by the authority. 4. We have heard learned counsels for the parties and perused the documents available on record. The fact which is not in dispute in this case is that the applicant – opposite party herein had joined her service as Lecturer in Economics in Rajendra (Auto) College, Bolangir, fell ill for which she remained on leave on 11.09.2000, since she did not recover from illness she remained on leave till 30.10.2006. The Principal of Rajendra (Auto) College, Bolangir vide his letters dtd.26.9.2005 and 15.9.2006 recalled the applicant to resume duty and while on leave she was transferred from Rajendra (Auto) College, Bolangir to Rourkela Government College vide office order No.33422 dtd.21.8.2004 by the respondent no.1 and in pursuance to the same the applicant joined at her transferred place on 14.11.2006 which has duly been informed to the Government vide letter No.1537 dtd.14.11.2006. While the applicant was continuing at Rourkela, a departmental proceeding was initiated under the provision of Rule 15 of Rules, 1962 and while the proceeding was pending she was superannuated from service w.e.f. 31.8.2011. Although a notice was issued to her treating 11.9.2000 as deemed date of resignation and proposed for removal from service w.e.f. the said date, the same was objected by the applicant by giving reply to the show cause against the proposed punishment and thereafter the order of removal was passed on 25.2.2013 removing the applicant from service with retrospective effect, i.e. w.e.f.11.09.2000. The contention raised by the applicant that the order of removal is without any jurisdiction for the following grounds: (i) The date when the order was passed the applicant had already been superannuated from service w.e.f. 31.08.2011 and after 31.08.2011 the relationship of master – servant ends and as such the proceeding after her retirement from service under the provision of Rule 15 of Rules, 1962 will not be maintainable and any punishment imposed under the provision of Rule 15 of Rules, 1962 will be said to be without authority of law for the reason that the Rules, 1962 provides punishment to an employee who is in Government service and as such after 31.08.2011 since she was not in Government service, the proceeding initiated under the provision of Rule 15 of Rules 1962 will be said to be illegal and in consequence thereof any punishment imposed will also be without jurisdiction. (ii) The order of removal cannot be passed with retrospective effect as has been passed in this case. 5. Rebutting the argument advanced on behalf of learned counsel for the applicant it has been argued out by the learned counsel for the petitioner that there is no bar in continuation of departmental proceeding if initiated in course of service of an employee and if the employee will retire during pendency of the departmental proceeding, it will be deemed to have been converted under the provision of Pension Rules, 1992. To substantiate his argument he has put reliance on Rule 7 of the Rules, 1992 and by fortifying his argument it has been submitted that the disciplinary authority has not committed any illegality and it is wrong to say that the departmental proceeding initiated while in service will be deemed to have been closed. The second ground taken by the petitioner – State is that the nature of allegation is very serious since the applicant has remained absent unauthorizeedly for a period of more than 5 years and as such she will not be said to be in service from the date from which she has gone on leave, i.e. 11.9.2000 and for this reason only she deemed to have been resigned from service w.e.f. 11.09.2000 and accordingly she was removed from service w.e.f. 11.9.200 taking into consideration the nature of allegation, hence there is no illegality. 5. 5. In order to appreciate the argument advanced on behalf of the parties it would be relevant to have discussion with respect to the relevant provisions pertaining to Rules 1962 under which a provision under Rule 15 has been provided which contains procedure for imposing penalties and the very line starts that without prejudice to the provisions of the public servant (Inquiry) Act, 1950, no order imposing on a Government servant any of the penalties specified in clause (vi) to (ix) of Rule 13 shall be passed except after an inquiry held as far as may be in the manner prescribed and one of the punishments enshrined under the said provision is also removal from service which shall not be a disqualification for future employment. We, after going through the specific provision, have found that the procedure for imposing penalties has been prescribed under the provision of Rule-15 for imposition of punishment on a Government Servant, meaning thereby a disciplinary proceeding is to be initiated against a Government Servant under the provision for inflicting punishment as prescribed under Rule 13 with the procedure as laid down under the provision of Rule 15. Rule 72 of the Orissa Service Code contains provision for removal of Government Servant after remaining leave for a continuous period exceeding 5 years and the Government can remove such employee from service after following the procedure laid down in Rules, 1962. For ready reference the provision as contained in Rule 72 is being reproduced herein below. “72. Removal of Government servant after remaining leave for a continuous period exceeding five years. (1) No Government servant shall be granted leave of any kind for a continuous period exceeding five years. For ready reference the provision as contained in Rule 72 is being reproduced herein below. “72. Removal of Government servant after remaining leave for a continuous period exceeding five years. (1) No Government servant shall be granted leave of any kind for a continuous period exceeding five years. (2) Where a Government servant does not resume duty after remaining on leave for a continuous period of five years, or where a government servant after the expiry of his leave remains absent from duty otherwise than on foreign service or on account of suspension, for any period which together with the period of the leave granted to him exceeds five years, he shall unless Government in view of the exceptional circumstances of the case otherwise determine, be removed from service after following the procedure laid down in the Orissa Civil Services (Classifications, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1962.” It is evident from the statutory provision as contained in rule 72 that if a Government employee will remain on leave for continuous period exceeding 5 years it is up to the government to retain him /her in service or to take decision for removal, but after following the procedure laid down in Rule 1962, meaning thereby, for removal from service, since it is a major punishment and as such the procedure laid down under rule 15 of the Rules 1962 is to be initiated against the said employee. There is no dispute with respect to the settled proposition that a departmental proceeding if initiated in course of the service of a delinquent employee will be deemed to have been continued under the provision of Pension Rules and in the State, pension rule is applicable, known as Orissa Civil Services (Pension) Rule, 1992 which contains provision under Rule 7 which is being reproduced herein below:- 7. Right to 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 a specified period and of ordering recovery from a pension or gratuity of the whole or part of ay pecuniary loss caused to the Government, if in any departmental or judicial proceedings, the pensioner 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 the 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 proceedings 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 finding 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 instruction; 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 reemployment, shall be instituted in respect of an event which took place, more than four years before such institution. (c) No judicial proceedings, if not instituted while the Government servant was in service, whether before his retirement or during his reemployment, shall be instituted in respect of an event which took 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.” It is evident from the provision as contained in rule 7 of the Rules, 1992 that a departmental proceeding if initiated in course of service of a government Employee, will deemed to have been a departmental proceeding initiated under the provision of Rules, 1992 the moment the delinquent employee will be superannuated from service, which further suggests that the authorities have been conferred with the power to continue with the proceeding so that the departmental proceeding initiated in course of service of a Government Employee may not be closed and further for the reason that after superannuation from service the punishment prescribed under rules 13 of the Rules, 1962 since not applicable to be imposed upon the retired Government Employee but due to seizure of the service the departmental proceeding may not come to an end, the statutory provision has been made to continue with the proceeding and to inflict punishment under the provision of the Pension Rule, 1992. In the light of these statutory provisions we have appreciated the facts of this case and the undisputed fact as we have narrated hereinabove, and for the risk of repetition it is once again been stated that a departmental proceeding was initiated against the applicant for imposing punishment under the provision of Rule 15 of the Rules, 1962 while the applicant was in service and during its pendency she had retired from service w.e.f. 31.8.2011. The disciplinary authority had imposed punishment of removal from service with retrospective effect, i.e. from 11.9.2000 treating the applicant removed from service in view of the provision of Rule 72 of the Orissa Service Code, the same was challenged before the learned Tribunal. Rule 72 of the Orissa Service Code provides provision for removal of such employee who have unauthorizedly been absent from duty but by following the procedure laid down under the Rules, 1962. In this case the applicant remained unauthorized absent and accordingly the Government decided to remove her from service and in view thereof a departmental proceeding was initiated under the provision of Rule 15 of the Rules, 1962, but while the proceeding was pending she was superannuated from service , meaning thereby the departmental proceeding initiated to inflict the order of punishment of removal as provided under Rule 72 of the Orissa Service Code has not been followed since it prescribes that before passing an order of removal the procedure laid down under the Rules, 1962 is to be followed. The authorities instead of inflicting the punishment upon the applicant under the provision of Pension Rule, has inflicted the punishment of removal by presuming the applicant to be resigned from service w.e.f. 11.9.2000 which cannot be said to be justified the reason being that on the one hand the State authority is treating 11.9.2000 as the deemed date of resignation and thereafter passing the order of removal w.e.f. 11.9.2000 and as such on 11.9.2000 both orders have been passed by the authority, one the deemed date of resignation and the order of removal, this is absolutely non-application of mind on the part of the authorities. As we have discussed herein above that there is no bar in continuation of departmental proceeding against an employee if initiated while in service for its continuation after its retirement under the provision of Pension Rule, meaning thereby the departmental proceeding initiated against an employee while in service cannot be terminated merely on the ground of superannuation of Government Employee, but simultaneously, the punishment as provided under the service code either in Rule 72 or under the provision of Rule 13 of Rules, 1962 can be imposed after normal superannuation of the delinquent employee. The purpose of legislation for deemed conversion of the departmental proceeding initiated under the provision of Rules, 1962 or to the provision of Pension Rule, 1992 is to conclude the departmental proceeding by inflicting appropriate punishment if the charge is proved, but after superannuation, no order of removal or any other punishment prescribed under the provision of rule 13 of the Rules, 1962 can be passed, so that the employee cannot be set escort free, the provision has been made to inflict punishment by deemed conversion of the departmental proceeding under the provision of Pension Rule which is Rule 7 of the Rules, 1992. According to us the learned Tribunal after taking into consideration the factual aspects and the legal proposition, has passed the order quashing the order of punishment being not maintainable with a direction to the authorities to settle the claim of the applicant as due and admissible to her within a stipulated period, however, with a liberty to the State-respondent to take appropriate action against the applicant in accordance with Rule / Law. According to our considered view, since the learned Tribunal has granted liberty to the State –respondent to take action against the applicant in accordance with law, as such the disciplinary authority is in no way being prejudiced after liberty having been granted by the Tribunal. Taking into consideration this aspect of the matter, according to our considered view there is no error in the order passed by the Tribunal. Accordingly we declined to interfere with the same. Hence the writ petition is dismissed.