The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C) No.9018 of 2024 In the matter of an application under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. ……………… Ajit Kumar Pradhan …. Petitioner -versus- State of Odisha and Others …. Opposite Parties For Petitioner : Mr. B. Pujari, Adv. For Opp. Parties : Mr. P.K. Panda, ASC PRESENT: THE HONBLE JUSTICE BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- Date of Hearing:25.08.2025 and Date of Judgment:25.08.2025 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- Biraja Prasanna Satapathy, J. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual/Physical) Mode.
Legal Reasoning
2. Heard learned counsel appearing for the Parties. 3. Petitioner has filed the present Writ Petition inter alia with the following prayer:- “The petitioner, therefore, prays that your Lordships may be graciously pleased to admit the petition, // 2 // issue notice to the Opp.party to show cause as to why this petition shall not be allowed and if the Opp.party does not show cause or shows insufficient cause, and after considering the causes shown, if any, and after hearing the Counsel for the parties, allow the petition with cost and issue appropriate nature of writ quashing the orders under annexures-9 and 11; and further pass order/direction to the O.P. to provide all the consequential service benefits to the petitioner; And for this act of kindness the petitioner shall as in duty bound ever pray.” 4. It is contended that in the proceeding initiated against the Petitioner vide Memorandum dtd.19.04.2012 under Annexure-4, Petitioner not only filed his written statement of defence, but also participated in the enquiry. 4.1. It is contended that after submission of the enquiry report under Annexure-7, Petitioner was issued with the 1st show cause and thereafter the 2nd show cause. However while issuing the 2nd show cause on 04.01.2017, the following punishments were proposed, (i) Stoppage of one increment without cumulative effect, (ii) Censure and (iii) Period of suspension i.e. from 15.11.2011 to 30.04.2012 be treated as such. 4.2. Even though Petitioner submitted his reply to the proposed punishment but without proper appreciation of the same, the impugned order of punishment was passed vide order dtd.04.01.2017 under Annexure-9. Page 2 of 9 // 3 // 4.3. It is contended that even though the Petitioner preferred an appeal, but the appellate authority without proper appreciation of the same, dismissed the appeal vide order dtd.23.05.2023 under Annexure-11. 4.4. Learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner contended that taking into account the nature of charges framed and the finding of the Inquiry Officer in his report, while imposing the punishment of stoppage of one increment without cumulative effect, the period of suspension could not have been treated as such, in view of the decision of this Court in the case of Bani Bhusan Dash vs. State of Odisha & Ors. This Court in the case of Bani Bhusan Dash in Para-10 has held as follows:- “10. Coming to the 3rd punishment, as imposed in the impugned order dated 15.09.2018 under Annexure-8, i.e. treating the period of suspension as leave due and admissible, no doubt the authorities are empowered to place an employee under suspension in contemplation or pending drawal of a proceeding exercising their power under Rule-12 of the OCS (CCA) Rules, 1962. Accordingly, they have to give a conclusion the manner to treat the period of suspension at the time of passing final order in the departmental proceeding. The authorities are to keep the suspension as such or to revoke the said suspension order by revising the period of suspension as duty, as because honouring nonengagement certificate for the relevant period, the authorities have sanctioned subsistence allowance to Page 3 of 9 // 4 // the delinquent during the period of suspension. In the instant case, the authority, after taking a decision not to treat the period of suspension as such, is not empowered to take a decision to treat the period of suspension as leave due and admissible, when the petitioner did not ask for any leave during the said period of suspension. Regularization of a particular period treating as leave period of different kinds of leave, as provided under Orissa Leave Rules, can be considered only when the petitioner/employee concerned seeks leave from the competent authority for certain period under certain circumstances. The authority cannot initiate a proposal from its side in assumption of leave application from the delinquent or employee concerned to treat the period as leave due and admissible affecting the delinquent by way of consuming accrued leave in favour of the employee concerned without any fault on his part. As the authority has come to a conclusion to punish the petitioner only with a minor penalty, the decision of the competent authority to place the petitioner under suspension on the allegation of grave misconduct does not appear to be satisfactory, rather it seems that the order of suspension was issued without application of mind or in a routine or mechanical manner. As such, no review of suspension was held, as per the guidelines. Under such circumstances, after concluding the departmental proceeding by imposing minor penalty of stoppage of one increment without cumulative effect, the authority should not have treated the period of suspension in any manner other than the duty affecting the service condition of the petitioner.” Page 4 of 9 // 5 // 4.5. A further submission was also made that prior to initiation of the proceeding, the disciplinary authority when moved the file, the then Principal Secretary of the Department in his note sheet dtd.22.03.2012 available under Annexure-12, observed to drop the proceeding. However, the Chief Secretary of the Government while approving such proposal of the Principal Secretary of the Department, passed an order to proceed in the proceeding under Rule-15 of the OCS (CCA) Rules, 1962. View of the Chief Secretary to proceed was accepted by the then Hon’ble Minister as well as Hon’ble Chief Minister. Accordingly, the proceeding in question was initiated with imposition of the punishment vide
Decision
order dtd.04.01.2017 under Annexure-9, so confirmed vide order dtd.23.05.2023 under Annexure-11. 4.6. It is contended that on the face of the notes sheet available under Annexure-12, the proceeding should not have been initiated vide Memorandum dtd.09.04.2012 with imposition of the impugned punishment. However, on the face of the punishment so imposed, while imposing the punishment of stoppage of one increment without cumulative effect and censure, the period of suspension could not have been treated as such in view of the decision in the case of Bani Bhusan Dash as cited (supra). It is accordingly contended that imposition of punishment Page 5 of 9 // 6 // to treat the period of suspension as such needs interference of this Court. 5. Learned Addl. Standing Counsel for the State on the other hand placing reliance on the counter affidavit contended that even though the proceeding file was moved and the then Principal Secretary of the Department gave an opinion to drop the proceeding vide Annexure-12, so approved by the Chief Secretary, but while approving the same, the Chief Secretary clearly opined to proceed with the proceeding under Rule-15 of the Rules. The said view of the Chief Secretary, was approved by the then Hon’ble Minister as well as by the Hon’ble Chief Minister. Accordingly, the proceeding was initiated vide Memorandum dtd.19.04.2012 and such view of the Principal Secretary of the Department to drop the proceeding has got no meaning. Not only that after initiation of the proceeding, Petitioner since participated without raising any objection, the submission of the learned counsel for the Petitioner that on the face of the view given by the Principal Secretary, the proceeding should not have been initiated is not acceptable after disposal of the proceeding with imposition of the punishment. 5.1. It is accordingly contended that since while approving the note sheet of the Principal Secretary, the Chief Secretary opined to proceed and same was approved by the Hon’ble Minister as well as the Hon’ble Page 6 of 9 // 7 // Chief Minister, no illegality or irregularity can be found with regard to initiation of the proceeding and imposition of the punishment vide the impugned order dtd.04.01.2017 under Annexure-9 so confirmed vide order dtd.23.05.2023 under Annexure-11. 6. Having heard learned counsel appearing for the Parties and considering the submissions made, this Court finds that prior to initiation of the proceeding vide Memorandum dtd.19.04.2012 under Annexure-4, the proceeding file when was moved, Principal Secretary of the Department though opined to drop the charges, but while approving the same, the Chief Secretary hold to proceed under Rule-15 of the Rules. Basing on such order passed by the Chief Secretary further approved by the Hon’ble Minister as well as by Hon’ble Chief Minister, the proceeding was initiated vide Memorandum dtd.19.04.2012 under Annexure-4. Therefore, this Court finds no fault with regard to initiation of the proceeding against the Petitioner on the face of the view expressed by the Principal Secretary in the note sheet. 6.1. It is found that in the proceeding, Petitioner duly participated and the proceeding was disposed of with imposition of the punishment, vide order dtd.04.01.2017 under Annexure-9. It is also found that the Petitioner without raising any objection participated in the proceeding and the order of punishment was Page 7 of 9 // 8 // passed vide order under Annexure-9, so confirmed vide order under Annexure-11. However, placing reliance on the decision in the case of Bani Bhusan Dash as cited (supra), it is the view of this Court that while imposing the punishment of stoppage of one increment without cumulative effect and punishment of censure, the period of suspension could not have been treated as such. Punishment of stoppage of one increment without cumulative effect and censure being in the nature of minor penalties as provided under Rule-13 of the Rules, period of suspension could not have been treated as such. 6.2. Therefore, this Court is inclined to interfere with that part of the impugned order, wherein the period of suspension has been treated as such. While interfering with the order so far as treating the period of suspension as such vide order dtd.04.01.2017 under Annexure-9, confirmed vide order dtd.23.05.2023 under Annexure-11 and quashing of the same, this Court directs Opposite Party No.1 to treat the period of suspension from 15.11.2011 to 30.04.2012 as duty for all purposes. 6.3. This Court accordingly directs Opposite Party No.1 to pass a fresh order in that regard and consequential follow up action be taken to extend the benefits as due and admissible including revision of pension. This Court directs Opposite Party No.1 to Page 8 of 9 // 9 // complete the entire exercise within a period of three (3) months from the date of receipt of this order. 7. Accordingly, the Writ Petition stands disposed of. (Biraja Prasanna Satapathy) Judge Orissa High Court, Cuttack Dated the 25th August, 2025/Subrat Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: SUBRAT KUMAR BARIK Reason: Authentication Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACK Date: 08-Sep-2025 18:42:08 Page 9 of 9