JUDGMENT K.R. MOHAPATRA, J. - W.P.(C) No. 11671 of 2016 has been filed by the State of Odisha and its instrumentalities assailing the order dated 20.03.2012 passed by learned Odisha Administrative Tribunal Cuttack Bench, Cuttack in O.A. No. 1135 (C) of 2008. W.P.(C) No. 16372 of 2017 has been filed by Sri Kirtan Bihari Singh questioning the legality and propriety of order dated 07.07.2017 passed by learned Odisha Administrative Tribunal, Cuttack Bench, Cuttack in C.P. No. 499(C) of 2014 arising out of O.A. No. 2753 (C) of 2012. The facts and point of law involved in both the cases being similar, those are taken up together and disposed of in a common judgment. For convenience of discussion, Sri Kirtan Bihari Singh is described as delinquent and the State of Odisha and its instrumentalities are described in their official capacity. 2. Undisputed facts giving rise to filing of these two writ petitions are that the delinquent while working as Filaria Inspector/Sanitary Inspector under the Director of Health Services and was posted at Khordha, an unfortunate incident occurred on 29.09.1999. On that date at about 3.30 P.M. One Pradipt Kumar Das, VS Clerk, Haldia PHC had gone to encash G.D. (staff salary) from State Bank of India, Khordha. While returning with the cash of Rs. 2,96,549/- along with the delinquent on his Scooter, two unknown persons came on a Motorcycle and snatched away the money. As such, said Sri Pradipta Kumar Das lodged an FIR in Khordha Police Station, which was registered as P.S. Case No. 312 dated 29.09.1999. On enquiry, the Investigating Officer submitted final report stating the allegation to be false. For the self-same incident, the Chief District Medical Officer, Khordha Issued notice to the delinquent on 15.12.1999 directing him to explain as to why disciplinary action should not be taken against him for such gross lapses and not attending his duty on 29.09.1999. Subsequently, disciplinary proceeding was initiated against the delinquent for vide Office order No. 1659 dated 21.02.2003 of Family Welfare Department for negligence in his duty, doubtful integrity, giving false statement, disobedience of orders of the authority and misappropriation of Government money, under Rule 15 of Orissa Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1962 (for short, ‘the CCA Rules’). The delinquent submitted his reply to show cause notice on 09.04.2003 denying the charges. Sri Pradipta Ku. The delinquent submitted his reply to show cause notice on 09.04.2003 denying the charges. Sri Pradipta Ku. Das, VS Clerk, was also departmentally proceeded for self-same allegations vide charge memo dated 03.12.2003 and after due enquiry, he was imposed with a penalty on 24.11.2004 for recovery of Rs. 2,96,546/- along with other punishments. Against the punishment imposed upon Sri Das, he preferred appeal. While considering the appeal filed by Sri P.K. Das, the Appellate Authority in exercise of the power under Rule-29 of the CCA Rules superceded all the proceedings drawn up against the delinquent and others and directed to initiate a joint enquiry under Rule-15 read with Rule-17 of the CCA Rules. Accordingly, joint proceeding under Rule-15 read with Rule-17 of the CCA Rules was initiated against the delinquent, Sri P.K. Das, VS Clerk and Dr. P.L. Panda, the then Medical Officer in –charge of the PHC. Assailing the initiation of joint enquiry, the delinquent filed O.A. No. 911(C) of 2007, which was disposed of with the direction to consider the representation of the delinquent. Accordingly, the representation of the deliquent was disposed of vide order dated 29.09.2007 asking him to wait till finalization of the joint enquiry proceeding. Assailing such action of the disciplinary authority, the delinquent filed O.A. No. 1135 (C) of 2008. Said O.A. was disposed of vide order dated 20.03.2012 holding that the appellate authority, while acting under Rule-29 of the CCA Rules, had no scope to pass order for a joint enquiry and the order of the Government to initiate joint enquiry was not in accordance with Rules. Accordingly, charge memo issued against the delinquent was quashed. In spite of the order of learned Tribunal, the joint enquiry was conducted and the delinquent was found guilty by Enquiry Officer and was directed to submit the representation against the proposed penalty. His representation was, however, rejected vide order dated 10.07.2012. As the delinquent was superannuated in the interregnum, i.e., on 30.06.2006, imposition of punishment of withholding 5% of his pension for five years was passed vide order dated 10.07.2012 under Rule-7(1) of the Orissa Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1992(for short, ‘the Pension Rules”). Assailing the imposition of punishment, the delinquent filed O.A. No. 2753(C) of 2012. As the delinquent was superannuated in the interregnum, i.e., on 30.06.2006, imposition of punishment of withholding 5% of his pension for five years was passed vide order dated 10.07.2012 under Rule-7(1) of the Orissa Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1992(for short, ‘the Pension Rules”). Assailing the imposition of punishment, the delinquent filed O.A. No. 2753(C) of 2012. The O.A. was disposed of vide order dated 15.07.2014 holding that since memo of charges against the applicant/delinquent dated 12.6.2006 was quashed, the 2nd show cause notice dated 03.04.2012 as well as the consequential punishment imposed upon him would not stand and hence the same was quashed. The delinquent thereafter filed C.P. No. 499(C) of 2014 for alleged violation of the order passed in O.A. No. 2753(C) of 2012, i.e., non-release of his pension and retiral benefit. The said contempt proceeding was dropped by order dated 07.07.2017 with a finding that in the O.A. direction was given to quash the second show cause notice dated 03.04.2012 and no further direction for payment of pension or retiral benefit was passed. Assailing the same, the delinquent filed W.P.(C) No. 16372 of 2017. In the meantime, the State Government have also filed W.P.(C) No. 11671 of 2016, assailing the order passed in O.A. No. 1135 (C) of 2008. 3. Miss Mohapatra, learned counsel appearing for the delinquent reiterating the above factual aspects submitted that since the delinquent was superannuated from service on 30.06.2006 during pendency of the enquiry under Rule-17 of the CCA Rules, the same could not have continued thereafter. Further, the government money in question amounting to Rs. 2,96,549/- has already been recovered from Sri P.K. Das. Thus, there will be no pecuniary loss caused to the Government. Hence, neither a proceeding under Rule-17 of the CCA Rules nor a proceeding under Rule-7 of the Pension Rules is maintainable. Thirdly, the appellate authority exceeded its jurisdiction in directing for joint enquiry in an appeal filed by Sri P.K. Das. The delinquent was neither a party to the said appeal nor was given any opportunity of hearing. The joint enquiry would not be maintainable in respect of the delinquent on and from the date of his superannuation. When a proceeding under Rule-15 was initiated against the delinquent, it should have been allowed to reach its logical conclusion. The delinquent was neither a party to the said appeal nor was given any opportunity of hearing. The joint enquiry would not be maintainable in respect of the delinquent on and from the date of his superannuation. When a proceeding under Rule-15 was initiated against the delinquent, it should have been allowed to reach its logical conclusion. When the matter was under consideration of the disciplinary authority, the direction was made for a joint enquiry, which is per se illegal. Assailing the same, the delinquent had filed O.A. No. 1135(C) of 2008, which was disposed of vide order dated 20.03.2012 quashing the charge memo against the delinquent in respect of the Joint Enquiry, holding it to be violative of provisions of the CCA Rules. The State Government, without assailing the said order, most illegally proceeded with the joint enquiry and issued 2nd show cause notice, the delinquent filed on O.A. No. 2753(C) of 2012, which was disposed of vide order dated 15.07.2014 quashing the 2nd show cause notice as well as the entire proceedings. In spite of the same, the State Government proceeded with the enquiry. For non release of the pensionary benefit, which was consequential to the order passed in O.A. No. 2753 (C) of 2012, the delinquent filed C.P. No. 499(C) of 2014. It is only after receiving notice in the contempt proceeding, the State Government filed W.P.(C) No. 11671 of 2016, which is hopelessly barred by time and is not maintainable. Since the contempt proceeding in C.P. No. 499(c) of 2014 was erroneously dropped vide order dated 07.07.2017 without proper application of judicial mind, she prayed for quashing of the same and to release the pension and other retiral benefit of the delinquent. 4. Mr. Sahu, learned Additional Government Advocate, per contra, submitted that since the delinquent Sri P.K. Das, the VS Clerk and Dr. P.L. Panda, the Medical Officer in-charge were proceeded for the self-same incident, the appellate authority had committed no illegality in directing for a joint enquiry under Rule-17 of the CCA Rules. The appellate authority under Rule-29(i)(a) of the CCA Rules has the power to consider as to whether the procedure prescribed under the said Rules has been complied with, while conducting enquiry. Further, he has power under Rule-29 (1) (c)(ii) to remit the matter to any authority with such direction as may deem fit in the circumstances of the case. The appellate authority under Rule-29(i)(a) of the CCA Rules has the power to consider as to whether the procedure prescribed under the said Rules has been complied with, while conducting enquiry. Further, he has power under Rule-29 (1) (c)(ii) to remit the matter to any authority with such direction as may deem fit in the circumstances of the case. The order passed by the appellate authority for initiating the joint inquiry under Rule-17 of the CCA Rules washed away the previous proceedings against the delinquent as well as other government servants against whom joint inquiry was directed. In fact, pursuant to the direction of the appellate authority, joint inquiry was initiated against all the delinquents superseding the proceedings drawn up against each of them. Further, as per provisions under Rule-7(2) of the Pension Rules, the departmental proceeding, if instituted against a government servant while in government service, shall after his retirement, be deemed to be a proceeding under the Pension Rules and shall be continued and concluded by the authority by which they have been commenced, in the same manner as if the government servant continued in service. The joint enquiry under Rule-17 was initiated prior to retirement of the delinquent. Thus, it should reach its logical conclusion. Learned Tribunal, while adjudicating O.A. No. 1135 (C) of 2008, had not taken these legal aspects into consideration. Thus, the order passed therein, is illegal and unsustainable. Further, the order passed in O.A. No. 2753(C) of 2012 was a consequence of order passed in O.A. No. 1135 (C) of 2008. As such, the same would not stand to the scrutiny of law. Further, C.P. No. 499(C) of 2014 was rightly dropped by learned Tribunal, which needs no interference. 5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record in detail. The facts involved in these two writ petition are not seriously disputed by either of the parties. It may be noted here that a sum of Rs. 2,96,549/- was lost. An FIR was lodged alleging theft of the government money. However, the Investigating Officer submitted the final report stating the allegations to be false. Individual proceedings were initiated against Sri P.K. Das, VS Clerk, the delinquent and Dr. P.L. Panda, who was Medical Officer in-charge. It may be noted here that a sum of Rs. 2,96,549/- was lost. An FIR was lodged alleging theft of the government money. However, the Investigating Officer submitted the final report stating the allegations to be false. Individual proceedings were initiated against Sri P.K. Das, VS Clerk, the delinquent and Dr. P.L. Panda, who was Medical Officer in-charge. While the proceeding against the delinquent was in progress, the disciplinary proceeding drawn up against Sri P.K. Das was finalized and he was imposed with punishment. Against the order of punishment, he preferred appeal. However, the appellate authority, in exercise of power under Rule-22 read with Rule-29 of the CCA Rules, directed for a joint enquiry under Rule-17 of the said Rules. Rule-29 of the CCA Rules deals with the matters to be considered in appeal, the relevant portion of which is quoted below:- “29. Consideration of Appeals-(1) In the case of an appeal against an order imposing any of the penalties specified in Rule 13 the appellate authority shall consider- (a) whether the procedure prescribed in these rules has been complied with and, if not whether such non-compliance has resulted in violation of any provisions of the Constitution or in failure of justice; (b) xx xx xx (c) xx xx xx and, after consultation with the Commission if such consultation is necessary in the case, pass orders- (i) xx xx xx (ii) remitting the case to the authority which imposed the penalty or to any other authority with such direction as it may deem fit in the circumstances of the case. Xx xx xx” (emphasis supplied) 6. On a bare perusal of Rule-29 makes it clear that the appellate authority has the power to direct for a joint enquiry in case the aforesaid conditions are satisfied. However, Miss Mohapatra, raised an objection to the effect that the appellate authority could not have directed for a joint enquiry against the delinquent while in seisin of the appeal filed by Sri P.K. Das. We are unable to accept her submission, inasmuch as Rule-29 does not impose any restriction of such nature on the appellate authority. However, her contention to the effect that the delinquent was neither a party to the appeal nor was given any opportunity of hearing sounds reasonable. We are unable to accept her submission, inasmuch as Rule-29 does not impose any restriction of such nature on the appellate authority. However, her contention to the effect that the delinquent was neither a party to the appeal nor was given any opportunity of hearing sounds reasonable. But, the submission has a little bearing on the case at hand, inasmuch as the appellate authority directed for supersession of all the previous proceedings against the delinquent as well as other two government servants. Thus, the proceeding under Rule-17 of the CCA Rules was started with a clean slate for all the government servants including the delinquent. The delinquent is free to raise any objection admissible under law in course of the said proceeding, including maintainability of the same. In fact, the delinquent has participated in the proceedings of joint enquiry. Only because a favourable report was submitted by the Enquiry Officer in the earlier proceeding drawn up against the delinquent, initiation of the subsequent joint enquiry will not prejudice him in any manner, as he is free to take all such objections in the joint proceeding/enquiry itself. True it is that, in O.A. No. 1135(C) of 2008 filed by the delinquent, learned Tribunal had quashed the charge memo against the delinquent and directed for finalizing the previous proceeding initiated against the delinquent under Rule 15 of the CCA Rules. But, while considering the matter, learned Tribunal has not taken into consideration, the scope and ambit of Rule-29 of the CCA Rules and power conferred on the appellate authority under the same. Although there is a delay in assailing the said order by the State Government, but taking into consideration the gravity of the allegation as well as the point of law involved together with the fact that the joint enquiry had proceeded substantially by the date of disposal O.A. No. 1135(C) of 2008, i.e., on 20.03.2012, we are not inclined to entertain the objection raised by learned counsel for the delinquent and overrule the same. 7. The joint enquiry under Rule-17 is also assailed on the ground that it would not be maintainable against the delinquent on and after his date of superannuation, i.e. 30.06.2006 and the proceeding beyond the said date was non est in the eyes of law. 7. The joint enquiry under Rule-17 is also assailed on the ground that it would not be maintainable against the delinquent on and after his date of superannuation, i.e. 30.06.2006 and the proceeding beyond the said date was non est in the eyes of law. Miss Mohapatra, learned counsel for the delinquent submitted that on and from the date superannuation, the delinquent ceased to be a government servant. Thus, a proceeding under Rule-7(1) is not maintainable against him. To answer the objection, we may refer to Rule-7(1) of the Pension Rules, which reads as follows: “7.(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 any 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. Xx xx xx 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 reemployment, 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; Xx xx xx” Thus, in terms of Rule-7(2) of the Pension Rules, the proceeding initiated against the government servant prior to the date of his retirement would continue and be concluded by the authority in the same manner as if the government servant had continued in service. As such, the joint enquiry under Rule-17 of the CCA Rules can continue against the delinquent even after his retirement from service. 8. Miss Mohapatra relying upon a decision in the case of Nanda Kumar Verma –v- State of Jharkhand and others, reported in 2012(3) SCC 580 submitted that there can be only one enquiry in respect of a charge for particular misconduct and that is what the Rules usually provide. 8. Miss Mohapatra relying upon a decision in the case of Nanda Kumar Verma –v- State of Jharkhand and others, reported in 2012(3) SCC 580 submitted that there can be only one enquiry in respect of a charge for particular misconduct and that is what the Rules usually provide. Thus, initiation of a joint enquiry, when the Enquiry Officer had already submitted his report in the previous proceeding against the delinquent under Rule-15 of the CCA Rules, is per se bad in law. Paragraph-26 of decision in the case of Nanda Kumar Verma (supra) is relevant for our consideration, which is quoted herein:- “26. In our opinion, having accepted the explanations and having communicated the same to the appellant, the High Court could not have proceeded to pass the order of initiating departmental proceedings and reverting the appellant from the post of chief Judicial Magistrate to the post of Munsif. On general principles, there can be only one enquiry in respect of a charge for a particular misconduct and that is also what the rules usually provide. If, for some technical or good ground, procedural or otherwise, the first enquiry or exoneration is found bad in law, there is no principle that a second enquiry cannot be initiated. Therefore, when a completed enquiry proceedings is set aside by a competent forum on a technical or on the ground of procedural infirmity, fresh proceedings on the same charges is permissible. “ (emphasis supplied) In the case at hand, the appellate authority having found that the procedure adopted by the disciplinary authority was not in accordance with law, superceded all the three individual departmental proceedings against the delinquent and other two government servants and directed for joint enquiry under Rule-17 of the CCA Rules. Applying the principles decided supra, we are constrained to hold that the delinquent along with other two government servants were proceeded with individually for one and the same incident. Thus, initiation of three individual departmental proceedings could have resulted in failure of justice. Initiation of an enquiry under Rule-17 is, therefore, appropriate in the instant case, as all three government servants, including the delinquent, are involved in one and the same incident. 9. In view of the discussion made above, we are of the firm opinion that the impugned order passed in O.A. No. 1135 (C) of 2008 is not sustainable in law and is accordingly quashed. 9. In view of the discussion made above, we are of the firm opinion that the impugned order passed in O.A. No. 1135 (C) of 2008 is not sustainable in law and is accordingly quashed. Accordingly, orders passed in O.A. No. 2753(C) of 2012, which is a consequence of the order passed in O.A. No. 1135(C) of 2008, also stands quashed. Since there was no direction for release of pension and retiral dues in favour of the delinquent in any of the aforesaid two Original Applications, C.P. No. 499(C) of 2014 was rightly dropped by learned Tribunal and the same needs no interference. Accordingly, W.P.(C) No. 11671 of 2016 is allowed and W.P.(C) No. 16372 of 2017 stands dismissed. S.Panda, J. I agree. Ordered accordingly.