The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK WP(C) No.4507 of 2025 Binod Kumar Jena ..... Petitioner Represented By Adv. - Laxmi Prasad Dwivedy -versus- ..... Opposite Parties Represented By Adv. – Ms. S.Mohanty, A.S.C. 1) State Of Odisha 2) Director, Ayush, Odisha 3) District Ayurvedic Medical Officer, Bolangir CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADITYA KUMAR MOHAPATRA Order No.
Decision
ORDER 12.03.2025 03. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual /Physical Mode). 2. Heard learned counsel for the Petitioner as well as learned Counsel for the Opposite Parties. 3. The Petitioner has filed the present writ application with the following prayer: “Under the aforesaid facts and circumstances, it is therefore, prayed that this Hon’ble Court may graciously be pleased to: (i) quash the impugned Order of punishment, dt.22.03.2024 as at Annexure-7, by concurrently holding the same is bad, illegal and is not sustainable and/or maintainable in the eye of law and thereby direct the Opp.Parties to treat the suspension period of the Petitioner as duty; (ii) pass such other order(s) or issue direction(s) as may be deemed fit and proper in the bona fide interest of justice .” 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner at the outset contended Page 1 of 5. that the petitioner, while working as Senior Clerk at DHMO, Kenojhar, was placed under suspicion vide order dated 12.06.2020 pending initiation of a departmental proceeding against him. Accordingly, a disciplinary proceeding was initiated on 24.02.2021 by the Opposite Party No.2 by issuing a memorandum of charges under Annexure-2 to the writ application. While the disciplinary proceeding was continuing, the petitioner was reinstated in service w.e.f. 24.02.2021 and was deployed at the office of DAMO, Baripada. Learned counsel for the petitioner further contended that initially the disciplinary proceeding and inquiry report was submitted by the Inquiring Officer on 20.11.2023. Since the Inquiring Officer has not suggested as to how the suspension period is to be treated, the petitioner submitted representations against such inquiry report on 28.11.2023. However, on 23.02.2024, the Opposite party No.2 passed the final order of punishment imposing the punishment as mentioned in the order dated 22.03.2024 under Annexure-7 to the writ application. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner further contended that in the final order of punishment, the disciplinary authority has not mentioned anything with regard to the suspension period. In the aforesaid context, learned counsel for the petitioner, drawing attention of this Court to Rule 12(6) of the O.C.S. (C.C.A.) Rules, 1962, submitted that the Opposite Party No.2 should have passed an order with regard to treatment of the suspension period of the petitioner in the final order of punishment while disposing of the disciplinary proceeding. Being aggrieved by Page 2 of 5. such conduct of the disciplinary authority, the petitioner again submitted a representation on 14.03.2024 before the Superintendent, Government Ayurvedic, Pharmacist, Bolangir with request to transfer the same to the Opposite Party No.2. However, the disciplinary authority passed the impugned order on 22.03.2024 under Anenxure-7 to the present writ application. Being aggrieved by such order the petitioner has approached this Court by filing the present writ application. 6. Learned counsel for the State on the other hand contended that the order passed by the disciplinary authority is an appealable order under Rule 22 of the O.C.S.(C.C.A.) Rule, 1962. However, the petitioner has not preferred any appeal and instead he has approached this Court by filing the present writ application. On such grounds, learned counsel for the State submitted that the present writ application is not maintainable. In reply to the aforesaid contention of the learned counsel for the State, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner does not want to challenge the entire order, instead he is only aggrieved by the conduct of the disciplinary authority in not providing any direction with regard to the treatment of the suspension period in terms of the O.C.S. (C.C.A.) Rules, 1962. 7. This Court, on perusal of the O.C.S. (C.C.A) Rules, 1962, observes that any order passed by the disciplinary authority is appealable under Rule 22 thereof. In the event it is found that the disciplinary authority has committed any error which is apparent on the case record there is a provision in the shape of Rule 32 which is available in the Rules, 1962, that provides for the Page 3 of 5. review of the order passed by the disciplinary authority. The aforesaid Rule 32 is extracted herein below:- 32. Review of Orders in Disciplinary Cases- “The authority to which an appeal against an order imposing any of the penalties specified in Rule 13 lies may, of its own motion or otherwise, call for the records of the case in a disciplinary proceeding, review any order passed in such a case and, after consultation with the commission where such consultation is necessary, pass such orders as it deems fit an if the Government servant had preferred an appeal against such order: Provided that no action under this rule shall be initiated more than six months after the date of the order to be reviewed”. 8. On a perusal of the aforesaid Rule 32, this Court is of the view that the authority to which the appeal against an order imposing any penalty lies, may, on its own motion or otherwise, call for the records of the case in a disciplinary proceeding, review any order passed in such case and in consultation with the commission, wherever stipulated, pass such order as it deems proper. Further, the said rule provide that no action under said rule shall be initiated more than six months after the date of the order which is sought to be reviewed. Since the impugned order was passed on 22.03.2024 under Annexure-7, the period of limitation has already expired for filing a review as provided under Rule 32. However, taking into consideration the impugned order under Annexure-7, this Court is of the considered view that in fact there is no direction by the disciplinary authority with regard to the treatment of the suspension period. Further, since Page 4 of 5. the review under Rule-32 is a statutory remedy, because the limitation period provided under the aforesaid Rule has already expired, it is no more open to the petitioner to seek review of the order. Therefore, this Court, in light of the peculiar facts and circumstances of the present case, directs the petitioner to prefer an appeal before the Appellate Authority under Rule 22 of O.C.S. (C.C.A) Rules, 1962. In the event the petitioner prefers an appeal within two weeks from today, the Appellate Authority shall call for a record and after providing an opportunity of hearing to the present petitioner, pass necessary orders in the appeal within a further period of six weeks from the date of preferring the appeal along with a certified copy of today’s order. 9. With the aforesaid observations and directions, the writ application stands disposed of. 10. Issue urgent certified copy of this order as per Rules. ( A.K. Mohapatra ) Judge Rubi Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: RUBI BEHERA Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Date: 20-Mar-2025 11:37:37 Page 5 of 5.