The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C) No.9183 of 2024 In the matter of an application under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. ……………… Asit Ranjan Jena …. Petitioner -versus- State of Odisha and Others …. Opposite Parties For Petitioner :Mr. A. Kanungo, Advocate For Opp. Parties :
Legal Reasoning
Mr. M.R. Mohanty, AGA PRESENT: THE HONBLE JUSTICE BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY --------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Date of Hearing:11.09.2025 and Date of Judgment:11.09.2025 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Biraja Prasanna Satapathy, J. 1. Heard Mr. A. Kanungo, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. M.R. Mohanty, learned Addl. Govt. Advocate for the State. 2. Petitioner has filed the present Writ Petition inter alia with the following prayer:- // 2 //
Decision
“It is therefore prayed that this Hon'ble Court may be graciously pleased to quash the order punishment dated 24.05.2021 Annexure- 4 and the rejection of appeal, and revision and memorial under Annexure-6, 8 and 10 respectively; of further be pleased And to give all consequential benefits due to the petitioner.” the 3. It is contended that Petitioner while continuing in service a proceeding was initiated against the petitioner by the DCP, Cuttack UPD-O.P. No.3 vide Cuttack UPD Proceeding No.47 dated 31.08.2019 with the following charges:- "While attached D.I.B. Cuttack UPD, as per I.G. of Police, BPSPA, Odisha, BBSR letter No. 2378/BPSPA (Trg.) dated. 5.4.2019, he was directed to proceed to SOG (Training and Resource Centre) Chandaka Bhubaneswar vide this office message No. 1844/R.O. dated 18.4.2019. Accordingly, he proceeded and reported his joining on 1.5.2019 being deported from Cuttack UPD (DIB) on 30.4.2019 for 63rd Batch Repeat AET training. After joining at SOG, on dated. 11.6.2019, he found absent from class from 8.30 A.M. to 11.45 A.M. and again on 21.6.2019, he did not attend the Indoor classes and outdoor classes and remained absent unauthorizedly. Again on 23.6.2019 at 19.00 Hrs. after Sunday break, he did not return from Out pass permission and remained absent willfully until 24.6.2019 P.M. and joined on 25.6.2019 A.M. Earlier when he was undergoing 52th AET Course of training, absconded from the training centre without intimation, for which he placed under suspension vide 0/0 No. 30/BPSPA(Trg.), dated 11.1.2018 of ADGP (Trg.) and Director, BPSPA, Odisha, BBSR. indiscipline conduct, he was For such repeated returned from SOG Training Centre on 26.6.2019 and joined in Cuttack UPD. This proves his indiscipline Page 2 of 9 // 3 // conduct and is liable to prosecute under Appendix - 49 of PMR Volume II.” 3.1. It is contended that petitioner duly participated in the proceeding and while submitting his reply, a specific stand was taken that because of sudden illness of his minor daughter, he remained absent from his training for the period in question. It is also contended that in support of illness of his minor daughter, petitioner produced the document available under Annexure-2. But without proper appreciation of the same, while disposing the proceeding vide order dated 24.06.2021 under Annexure-4, petitioner was imposed with the punishment of One Black Mark, which is in the nature of a Major Penalty in terms of the provisions contained under PMR-824. 3.2. It is vehemently contended that taking into account the nature of charge framed and the stand taken by the petitioner that because of the unavoidable circumstance and due to sudden illness of his minor daughter, he could not intimate with regard to his absence for one and half day in course Page 3 of 9 // 4 // of the training and on the face of such stand taken by the petitioner, petitioner could not have been imposed with the major punishment with imposition of One Black Mark vide the impugned order under Annexure-4. 3.3. It is also contended that petitioner challenging such order though moved the Appellate Authority- O.P. No.4 and thereafter the Revisional Authority- O.P. No.2, but the Appellant Authority as well as Revisional Authority without proper appreciation of the grounds taken in the Appeal and Revision, rejected the same vide order dated 03.03.2022 under Annexure-6 and order dated 31.10.2022 under Annexure-8. The Memorial filed was also rejected vide order dtd.29.04.2023 under Annexure-10. 3.4. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that taking into account the nature of charges framed against the petitioner in the proceeding and the stand taken by the petitioner for his remaining absent in the Training for one and half day, such a Page 4 of 9 // 5 // major penalty could not have been imposed and it is disproportionate to the alleged charge. In support of his submission, reliance was placed to the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of S.R. Tewari v. Union of India, (2013) 6 SCC 602 : Hon’ble Apex Court in Para-26 of the judgment in S.R. Tewari has held as follows:- “26. In a normal course, if the punishment imposed is shockingly disproportionate, it would be appropriate to direct the disciplinary authority to reconsider the penalty imposed. However, in order to shorten the litigation, in exceptional and rare cases, the court itself can impose appropriate punishment by recording cogent reasons in support thereof.” 3.5. Reliance was also placed to a decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Chairman and Managing Director, United Commercial Bank v. P.C. Kakkar, (2003) 4 SCC 364: Hon’ble Apex Court in Para-9 of the judgment in P.C. Kakkar has held as follows:- the conscience of “9. If the punishment imposed by the disciplinary authority or the the High Appellate Authority shocks Court/Tribunal, it would appropriately mould the relief, either directing the disciplinary/appellate authority to reconsider the penalty imposed, or to shorten the litigation, it may itself, in exceptional and rare cases, impose appropriate punishment with cogent reasons in support thereof.” Page 5 of 9 // 6 // 3.6. Reliance was also placed to a decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Sunil Kumar Singh Vs Bihar Legislative Council, reported in 2025 INSC 264. Hon’ble Apex Court in Para-77, 78 and 79 of the judgment has held as follows “77. We reiterate that the principle of proportionality is a cornerstone of our judicial system, and it mandates that the severity of the punishment must correspond to the gravity of the offence. Given the aforementioned analysis, we hold that the punishment meted out to the Petitioner was excessive and disproportionate to the nature of the offence he committed. E.4. If Issue No. (iii) is answered in the affirmative, whether this Court is empowered to determine the quantum of punishment that may be imposed on the Petitioner? 78. Having held that the punishment of expulsion imposed on the Petitioner is harsh and disproportionate, the only natural corollary would then be to consider the appropriate quantum of punishment that should be imposed on the Petitioner and whether this Court can undertake such determination. 79. In ordinary course, when a court concludes that the punishment imposed by the disciplinary authority is disproportionate to the gravity of the misconduct, it does not generally substitute its own assessment of the appropriate penalty. Instead, the established judicial approach is to remit the matter to the disciplinary authority for reconsideration.” 4. Learned Addl. Govt. Advocate on the other hand made his submission basing on the stand taken in the counter affidavit. It is contended that petitioner in course of training, remained absent without any intimation for one and half day. Petitioner having working in a Disciplined Organisation like SOG, Page 6 of 9 // 7 // strict discipline is a mandatory requirement. Since petitioner without any intimation remained absent on 21.06.2019 and again on 23.06.2019 and 24.06.2019, in total, one and half day, petitioner has been rightly imposed with the punishment of One Black Mark by the Disciplinary Authority-O.P. No.3 vide order dated 24.06.2021 under Annexure-4. 4.1. It is also contended that since such order of punishment has been upheld in Appeal and Revision as well as in the memorial so filed, no interference is called for. 5. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and considering the submissions made, this Court finds that the proceeding in question was initiated with the charges that in course of training, petitioner remained absent for ‰ day on 21.06.2019 and for a full day on 23/24.06.2019. 5.1. Considering the nature of charges framed and the stand taken by the petitioner in his defense that he was compelled to take such leave without any Page 7 of 9 // 8 // intimation because of sudden illness of his minor daughter with filing of the required certificate from the concerned Doctor as available under Annexure-2, it is the view of this Court that imposition of punishment of One Black Mark which is in the nature of a major penalty is not proportionate to the alleged misconduct of the petitioner. 5.2. Placing reliance on the aforesaid decisions of the Hon’ble Apex Court, this Court is of the view that the punishment imposed on the petitioner is completely disproportionate to the alleged charges. In view of the same, this Court is inclined to quash the impugned order of punishment passed by O.P. No.3 under Annexure-4, so confirmed by O.P. Nos.1, 2 and 4 vide order under Annexure-10, 8 and 6. While quashing all those orders, this Court remits the matter to O.P. NO.3 with a direction to re-consider the question with regard to imposition of punishment only. This Court is also of the view that taking into account the nature of charges framed, the punishment prescribed under PMR-824 (h) to (l) be Page 8 of 9 // 9 // imposed on the petitioner. This Court directs O.P. No.3 to pass a fresh order with imposition of any of the punishment prescribed under PMR 824(h) to (l) within a period of 6 (six) weeks from the date of receipt of this order with due communication. This order is also passed with the condition that petitioner will not challenge such order of punishment to be imposed in terms of the present order. 6. The Writ Petition stands disposed of accordingly. (Biraja Prasanna Satapathy) Judge Orissa High Court, Cuttack Dated the 11th September, 2025/Basudev Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BASUDEV SWAIN Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Date: 19-Sep-2025 16:53:18 Page 9 of 9