JUDGMENT : S.N. Prasad, J. This writ petition is against the order passed by the opposite parties dated 11.2.2009(Annexure-3), 5.6.2009(Annexure-5) and 1.9.2009(Annexure-7) by which order has been passed to recover some amount from the retiral dues of the petitioner which has been confirmed by the appellate as well as revisional authorities. 2. Case of the petitioner is that he having been appointed as Field Assistant under the Orissa Forest Development Corporation and while working he has applied for voluntary retirement, same was allowed and accepted by the Divisional Manager, Berhmapur vide office order no.197 dated 26.9.2008 and accordingly the petitioner was allowed to retire voluntarily from the Corporation w.e.f. 30.9.2008. The opposite parties have released all retiral dues and pension of the petitioner but issued a show cause notice to him on 3.11.2008 alleging therein that 15 years back, during his tenure in Baghanti SWC 19(DL No.65/93-94), 112, 910 C.U.M. of Timber and 18 stacks of Firewood could not be transported to depot and subsequently deteriorated in the forest as to why the cost of said timber and firewood shall not be recovered from him, petitioner was directed to appear in the office of opposite party no.3 on 11.11.2008 for personal hearing. Petitioner in pursuance to the direction, has appeared before the opposite party no.3 on the date fixed, submitted his show cause reply and has denied the entire allegations leveled against him by stating that he was only entrusted with the work of falling, dragging of the timber and firewood inside the coupe and he had submitted report to that effect for each and every month through monthly progress report to the S.D.M. & OFDC, Phulbani which is available on record which may kindly be verified. Opposite party no.3 without providing any adequate opportunity of being heard and without initiating a regular departmental enquiry, by not following the principle of natural justice, has passed an order on 11.2.2009 directing the authority concerned to recover a sum of Rs.3,02,327/- from the petitioner. The petitioner being aggrieved with the order of recovery dated 11.2.2009 has preferred appeal before the opposite partyno.2 by giving therein all details but the appellate authority although has considered his reply but not reversed the order of punishment rather original order was modified to the extent that amount of Rs.1,24,356/- shall be recovered from the retiral dues of the petitioner. 3. 3. Petitioner has preferred revision which has also been rejected, hence petitioner is before this Court assailing the order impugned on the following grounds. (i) Petitioner has retired from service by offering voluntary retirement on 26.9.2008 while working as Field Assistant and thereafter show cause notice was issued on 3.11.2008 alleging therein allegation of lapses in his duty the Orissa Forest Development Corporation has sustained financial loss and for that reason order of recovery has been passed without following due procedure as because the order of recovery after retirement, will be deemed to be major punishment and as such the authorities were duty bound to initiate regular departmental proceeding but that has not been done and merely on the ground of show cause major punishment has been imposed. (ii) Petitioner has never been assigned work of transportation and as such the work for which he was not accountable, there cannot be any misconduct on that account. (iii) Even reply given by the petitioner in terms of the show cause has not been taken into consideration by the authorities while passing order of recovery. (iv) Appellate authority although has considered reply of the petitioner to some extent and thereby reduced amount of recovery which also suggests that the authorities have acted without any application of mind. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon some decisions in the case of Bhagirathi Jena -vs- Board of Directors, O.S.F.C. and others reported in AIR 1999 S.C.1841; Sukadev Behera -vs- M.D., OFDC Ltd. reported in 2008(II) OLR 612 ; and Sri Dinabandhu Sarangi -v- M/s O.F.D.C. and others reported in 2010(I) OLR 622 . 5. Orissa Forest Development Corporation after being noticed by this Court put their appearance and filed counter affidavit stating, inter alia, therein that the petitioner since has been superannuated from service under Voluntary Retirement Scheme in pursuance to the modal Voluntary Retirement Scheme wherein a condition is there at para-6.5 with the stipulation that amount recoverable from the employee can be recovered from the voluntary retirement dues payable under the scheme. Punishment of recovery being minor in nature and as such the authorities have issued show cause, which has been replied by the petitioner, but after being considered by the original authority the order has been passed after considering the fact that the petitioner himself has admitted the fact that he was responsible to transport the stack from forest to depot, hence there is no infirmity in the order and due to the inaction on the part of the petitioner the Corporation has sustained loss and as such show cause notice has been issued, reply submitted by the petitioner is duly been considered, authorities have adopted fair process and the petitioner has even appeared and been provided opportunity of being heard which he has availed by giving reply to the questionnaire, hence all process which is necessary for inflicting punishment which is minor in nature has been followed. 6. It has been contended by learned Senior counsel appearing for the Corporation refuting the argument advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner that there is requirement of regular departmental proceeding by submitting that there is a Discipline and Appeal Rule known as Orissa Forest Corporation Service Rules, 1986. Originally there was provision as contained in Rule 123 empowering the authority to institute a proceeding; Rule 124 provides procedure for imposing major penalties while Rule 125 provides procedure for imposing minor penalties. Recovery of pay of the whole or part of any pecuniary loss caused by him to the Corporation by negligence or breach of orders or misappropriation or any other reasons is minor penalties listed under the penalties as contained in Rule 121 and the procedure for minor penalty has been prescribed under Rule 125 whereby and where under it has been provided that power inflicting punishment which is minor in nature the employee shall be given opportunity to make any representation which shall be taken into consideration by the disciplinary authority, as such it has been submitted that the petitioner has given adequate opportunity as per the Discipline and Appeal Rule applicable to the petitioner. Learned senior counsel for the Corporation has further refuted the argument of the petitioner that since the petitioner has retired from service recovery will be said to be major punishment and as such power inflicting major punishment a regular departmental proceeding will have to be initiated against the delinquent-employee and in this context decisions in the case of Bhagirathi Jena -vs- Board of Directors, O.S.F.C. and others (supra); Sukadev Behera -vs- M.D., OFDC Ltd. (supra) Sri Dinabandhu Sarangi -v- M/s O.F.D.C. and others as has been referred, has strongly been refuted by the learned Senior Counsel for the Corporation by submitting that the same is not applicable since the competent authority has incorporated Rule 123-A making provision therein the provision of continuation of departmental proceeding against the retired employee and therein it has been provided that the retired employee will be deemed to be in service for the purpose of departmental proceeding. The said section has been incorporated in the year 2004 by way of amendment and as such show cause notice since been issued against the petitioner in the year 2008, hence petitioner will be covered under the provision of Rule 123-A and accordingly he will be treated to be in service for the purpose of dealing with departmental proceeding and invoking said provision of law, recovery will be treated to be minor punishment as because when recovery will be treated as minor punishment for the employee who is in service and as such after coming into effect of Rule 123-A there being no difference in between employee already on roll or retired, hence there is no difference in between categories of employees and as such the recovery of amount from the retiral dues will be treated to be minor punishment both for employees who is on roll or who has retired, hence Rule 125 will be applicable which provides procedure for imposing minor punishment which has been followed in the case of the petitioner, as such there is no illegality having been committed by the authorities in imposing punishment upon the petitioner. 7. 7. Learned Senior Counsel has also contended that since petitioner has taken separation from service under the Voluntary Retirement Scheme where there is a clause as contained in Clause 6.5 which stipulated that authorities will be empowered to recover any amount from the retiral dues in case of any pecuniary loss caused to the Corporation due to conduct of the concerned employee. It has been contended that the petitioner has been given all opportunity of being heard, he was directed to appear in person, he has availed that opportunity where he has admitted his guilt that duty of transporting was conferred upon him but due to some rider he has not transported immediately to the depot hence there is admission on the part of the petitioner, which has been accepted even by the appellate authority and that is the reason quantum of amount of recovery has been reduced. It has further been contended that there is no provision of revision under the statute but even then revision petition was considered by the authority concerned and as such it cannot be said that the petitioner has not been heard and has not been given adequate opportunity of being heard. 8. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents on record and after hearing them the issue which fell for consideration before this Court in this case is as to whether regular departmental proceeding was required before passing order of recovery by the original authority since the petitioner has retired on the date when show cause notice was issued? There is no dispute about the fact that the petitioner has retired from service on 26.6.2008 and on the basis of the audit report it was found that the Orissa Forest Development Corporation has sustained some pecuniary loss and the audit report has casted accountability upon the petitioner while he was working as Field Assistant in the area where he was posted, accordingly show cause notice was issued on 3.11.2008. 9. For deciding the issue it will be relevant to refer to the provisions as contained in Rule 121 of the Orissa Forest Corporation Service Rules, 1986 which is being reproduced below. 9. For deciding the issue it will be relevant to refer to the provisions as contained in Rule 121 of the Orissa Forest Corporation Service Rules, 1986 which is being reproduced below. “Minor penalties: The following penalties may, for good and sufficient reasons and as hereinafter provided be imposed on an employee/workman, namely: (i) Fine, (ii) (ii) Censure, (iii) Withholding of promotion, (iv) Recovery from pay of the whole or part of any pecuniary loss caused by him to the Corporation by negligence or breach of orders or misappropriation or any other reasons, (v) withholding/stoppage of increments of pay. (vi) Suspension. Provided that the penalty of fine shall be nominal and imposed only on Class-IV employees/workmen for specific dereliction of duties. Major penalties: (vii) Reduction to lower stage in the time scale of pay for a specified period with further directions as to whether or not the employee/workman will earn increments of pay during the period of such reduction and whether on the expiry of such period, the reduction will or will not have the effect of postponing future increments of his pay. (viii) Reduction to a lower time scale of pay, grade, post of service which shall ordinarily be a bar to the promotion of the employee/workman to the time scale of pay, grade, post or service from which he was reduced, with or without further directions regarding condition of restoration to the grade, post or service from the employee/workman was reduced and his seniority and pay on such restoration to that grade, post, or service; (ix) Compulsory retirement amounting to premature retirement; (x) Dismissal from Corporation service which shall ordinarily be a disqualification for future employment and re-employment.” Rule 124 provides procedure for imposing major penalties while Rule 125 provides procedure for minor penalties. Rule 124 speaks that before inflicting major penalties definite charge has to be framed and served upon the delinquent-employee and regular departmental proceeding shall have to be initiated against the delinquent by appointing Enquiring Officer and by providing all adequate opportunity of being heard meaning thereby enquiry has to be conducted in pursuance to the Public Enquiry Act,1850 while Rule 125 provides for imposition of minor penalty which provides that the employee shall be provided opportunity of making representation which shall be considered. 10. 10. These provisions have been incorporated in the original service Rules given into effect since the year 1986 but in the year 2004 i.e. on 9.1.2004 new provision has been incorporated in the Rule 1986 being Rule 123-A of the Orissa Forest Corporation Service Rules, 1986 which empowers the authority to initiate and continue proceeding after superannuation/retirement/termination of service, provision of Rule 123-A is being quoted hereinbelow: 1.(a) Competent disciplinary authority as enumerated in Rule 123 may institute disciplinary proceedings against any employee after superannuation for his misconduct and for whole or part of any pecuniary loss caused to the Corporation if he is found prima facie responsible for such misconduct of negligence in duty during the period of his service including the service rendered on reemployment after retirement. Such departmental proceedings shall be deemed to be 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 Corporation employee had continued in service. The departmental proceedings referred to above if not instituted while the employee was in service, whether before his retirement for during his reemployment- (iii) shall not be instituted save with sanction of Board of Directors, if the C.M.D. is the disciplinary authority and of the C.M.D. if the disciplinary authority is subordinate to C.M.D. (iv) shall be conducted by such authority and as such place as the disciplinary authority may direct & in accordance with the procedure applicable to disciplinary proceedings in which an order of dismissal from service could be made in relation to the Corporation employee during his service. 1.(b) Disciplinary proceedings instituted while the employee/workman was in service, whether before his retirement or during his reemployment, shall be continued and concluded by the authority by which they were commenced in the same manner as if the employee/workman had continued in service. 1.(c) In the case of Corporation employee/workman, who has retired on attaining the age of superannuation or otherwise and against whom any disciplinary or judicial proceedings are instituted or were disciplinary proceedings continued under Clause (a) and (b) the whole or part of the retiral and other payable dues to the extent of loss alleged shall be withheld till final disposal of disciplinary proceeding and/or judicial proceedings. This provision confers power upon the disciplinary authority to institute disciplinary proceeding against any employee after superannuation for his misconduct and for whole or part of any pecuniary loss caused to the Corporation if he is found prima facie responsible for such misconduct of negligence in duty during the period of his service including the service rendered on reemployment after retirement, with the clear cut stipulation that if departmental proceeding has not been instituted while the employer was in service, shall not be instituted save with sanction of Board of Directors, if the C.M.D. is the disciplinary Authority and of the C.M.D. if the disciplinary authority is subordinate to C.M.D. 11. Now the case has to be assessed in the light of the provisions as contained in Rule 123 and Rule 123-A. In the original statute there was no provision to initiate a departmental proceeding in case of retirement but by virtue of amendment introduced on 29.1.2004 Rule 123-A has been incorporated conferring power upon the disciplinary authority to initiate disciplinary proceeding in case of any misconduct and for whole of part of any pecuniary loss caused to the Corporation but subject to sanction by the Board of Directors, if the C.M.D. is the disciplinary authority and of the C.M.D. if the disciplinary authority is subordinate to C.M.D. The petitioner who has admittedly been separated from service w.e.f. 26.9.2008 and show cause notice was issued on 3.11.2008 under the signature of Divisional Manager, Boudh(CKL) Division asking reply from the petitioner that during his tenure Baghanti SWC 19 (DL No.65/93-94), 112, 910 C.U.M. of timber and 18 stacks of firewood could not be transported to depot and subsequently deteriorated in the forest for which the Corporation has already paid royalty, hence pecuniary loss has been caused and as such why the amount may not be recovered. This is the basis of passing the order of recovery which was passed by the Divisional Manager, Boudh being on 11.2.2009. Thus the show-cause notice being issued on 3.11.2008 which was after separation of the petitioner from service i.e. 26.9.2008. This is the basis of passing the order of recovery which was passed by the Divisional Manager, Boudh being on 11.2.2009. Thus the show-cause notice being issued on 3.11.2008 which was after separation of the petitioner from service i.e. 26.9.2008. Hence in view of the original Rule 1986 no order of punishment could have been passed against the petitioner since there was no provision to inflict any punishment upon retirement of employee of the Corporation till incorporation of Rule 123-A which confers power upon the disciplinary authority to initiate disciplinary proceeding against the employees who have retired from service for any misconduct or any pecuniary loss caused due to his conduct but subject to the condition that there must be sanction of Board of Directors if the C.M.D. is the disciplinary authority and of the C.M.D. if the disciplinary authority is subordinate to C.M.D. Admittedly power has been conferred upon the Corporation in view of Rule 123-A having been incorporated on 29.1.2004, hence the argument advanced by learned Senior Cousnel for the Corporation is admitted to the effect that the authorities even conferred with the power to initiate disciplinary proceeding against the petitioner even after his retirement i.e. 26.9.2008. 12. So far as contention that the order of recovery can be made against the employee who has been superannuated from service on the basis of show cause this cannot be accepted for the reasons that the recovery being minor punishment has been directed to be recovered in pursuance to the Disciplinary and Appeal Rule by following the procedure for imposing minor penalties as provided under Rule 124 but since the petitioner has retired and as such section 125 will not be applicable as because section 125 speaks regarding providing of opportunity to make representation to the employee/workman, these two words suggests that the procedure provided under Rule 125 has been made for the employee who is in service and it is settled that the moment an employee superannuates from service he will be deemed to have no relation of employee-employer hence he/she cannot be termed as employee/workman. 13. 13. From perusal of Rule 121 prescribing list of penalties which also suggests that the said penalties have been meant for imposing same on the employee/workman prescribing therein punishment of fine, censure, withholding of promotion, recovery from pay, withholding/stoppage of increments of pay, suspension and all these punishments can only be inflicted upon regular employee who is on roll of service and what is being contended by learned senior counsel for the Corporation that recovery being a minor punishment will also deemed to be minor punishment for the retired employee, that cannot be imposed from the list of minor penalties which has exclusively meant for employee/workman who is on the roll. Hence argument advanced by learned Senior counsel for the Corporation cannot be accepted that recovery from retiral dues of a retired employee will be said to be a minor penalty, hence requirement as provided under Rule 125 providing employee to make representation will be sufficient requirement to impose punishment of recovery. Argument advanced by learned Senior Counsel for the Corporation can also not be accepted in view of the provisions as contained in Rule 123-A which confers power upont the competent authority to initiate a departmental proceeding against a retired employee and it is settled that after retirement no punishment of dismissal, removal, compulsory retirement which are major punishment or fine, censure, withholding of increment or any other punishment which has been listed under the heading minor punishment can be imposed and the only punishment that can be inflicted upon the retired employee is withholding of pension in case service is pensionable or recovery from retiral dues in case of guilt having been proved. 14. 14. From perusal of Rule 123-A it clarifies the position that the competent authority may initiate disciplinary proceeding against any employee after superannuation for his misconduct and for whole of part of any pecuniary loss caused to the Corporation if he is found prima facie responsible for such misconduct of negligence in duty during the period of his service including the service rendered on reemployment after retirement and that proceeding has to be instituted with the sanction of Board of Directors if the C.M.D. is the disciplinary authority and of the C.M.D. if the disciplinary authority is subordinate to C.M.D., meaning thereby there has to be finding regarding prima facie accountability of the retired employee in the departmental proceeding if instituted with the prior sanction of the competent authority. 15. On the basis of situation as has been narrated hereinabove, if the facts of the case will be compared, it is evident that show cause notice has been issued under the signature of the Divisional Manager, Boudh on 3.11.2008 and he himself has passed the order without giving any finding regarding negligence and if there is negligence then it is only the petitioner or others were also liable for, so that equal share of pecuniary loss can be assessed and thereby all the employees will be dealt with accordingly but the Divisional Manager on the basis of show cause notice dated 3.11.2008 and without fixing any accountability upon other employees, but only fixed accountability upon the petitioner making direction of recovery of amount of rupees three lakhs and odd. This order cannot be said to be in terms of Rule 123-A of the Orissa Forest Corporation Service Rules, 1986 because of the reason that there no departmental proceeding initiated against the petitioner in terms of this provision and there is no approval of the competent authority even assuming that show cause notice has been issued but even then there must be sanction of the competent authority as provided under Rule 123-A(1-a)(iii). Petitioner has preferred an appeal and even in the appeal although quantum of amount of penalty has been reduced but accountability has not been fixed. 16. Petitioner has preferred an appeal and even in the appeal although quantum of amount of penalty has been reduced but accountability has not been fixed. 16. Petitioner right from very beginning has admitted that transportation work was conferred upon him but he has not transported the stacks because there was non-availability of truck and other infrastructure facilities which has been reported by the petitioner before the competent higher authority but no action has been taken, this aspect of the matter has not at all been considered by the authorities who has passed order of recovery as contained in Annexure-3 which suggest that the authorities in a very mechanical way has inflicted punishment without finding any accountability of pecuniary loss sustained to the Corporation and this is the purpose of conducting enquiry but that has not been done in this case. 17. The argument of the learned senior counsel appearing for the Corporation that the Voluntary Retirement scheme provides recovery of any part of the amount even the employee is not under the Corporation or disciplinary proceeding for recovery of any specified item, same amount shall be withheld from the amount of ex-gratia payment but the clause as contained in 6.5 Model Voluntary Retirement Scheme is not applicable in the facts and circumstances of the case because no criminal or disciplinary proceeding was ever been instituted against the petitioner. 18. In view of the facts and circumstances narrated hereinabove, the order of recovery dated 11.2.2009 and its appellate order dated 1.9.2009 are without any jurisdiction and as such same are not sustainable in the eye of law. Accordingly, the same are set aside, reserving liberty to the Corporation, if so wishes, to initiate fresh proceeding in accordance with. 19. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of with the direction and observation stated hereinabove.