The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C) No.15242 of 2023 Ajit Kumar Pradhan …. Petitioner Mr. B. Pujari, Advocate -versus- Secy. to Govt., Revenue and Disaster Management, Department, BBSR and Another …. Opposite Parties
Legal Reasoning
Mr. A. Tripathy, AGA CORAM: JUSTICE BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY Order No.
Decision
ORDER 01.08.2025 02. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual/Physical) Mode. 2. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 3. Petitioner has filed the present Writ Petition inter alia with the following prayer:- therefore, prays “The petitioner, that your Lordships may be graciously pleased to admit the petition, call upon the Opp. Parties to show cause as to why the petition shall not be allowed, and after hearing the counsel for the parties and perusing the causes shown, if any, allow the petition with cost and issue appropriate nature of writs; (i) Quashing the orders/report under Annexures-1 to 3 and 5; (ii) And further direct the O.Ps. to restore to the petitioner all consequential service and financial benefits.” // 2 // 4. It is contended that in the proceeding initiated against the petitioner vide Memorandum dated 15.09.2014, the disciplinary authority while passing the order of censure which is in the nature of a minor punishment vide order dated 03.06.2017 under Annexure-3 could not have passed the order in treating the period of suspension as leave due and admissible, in view of the decision of this Court in the case of Bani Bhusan Das Vrs. State of Odisha and Others (W.P.(C) No.7635 of 2019 decided on 28.10.2021). This Court in Para 10 of the decision in the case of Bani Bhusan Dash 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 in the departmental proceeding. The final order 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 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 Page 2 of 5 // 3 // 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 imposing minor the departmental proceeding by increment without penalty of stoppage of one 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.” 4.1. It is contended that even though petitioner filed an appeal against such order of punishment, the Appellate Authority rejected the appeal vide order dated 23.03.2022 under Annexure-5. 4.2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that since the disciplinary authority while disposing the proceeding, imposed the punishment of censure which is in the nature of a minor punishment, while awarding such punishment, no punishment could have been awarded to treat the period of suspension as leave due and admissible, instead of treating the same as duty for all purposes. 4.3. It is accordingly contended that the impugned order passed under Annexures-3 and 5 are not sustainable in the eye of law so far as it relates to treating the period of suspension as leave due and admissible. Page 3 of 5 // 4 // 5. Mr. A. Tripathy, learned Addl. Govt. Advocate on the other hand placing reliance on the counter affidavit contended that since the proceeding initiated against the petitioner under Annexure-1, was duly completed by following the provision contained under OCS(CCA) Rules and by following the principle of natural justice, no interference is called for and the same has been rightly imposed taking into account the nature of charges. It is also contended that since the order passed by the disciplinary authority has been confirmed by the appellate authority the same needs no interference. 6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and considering the submissions made, this Court finds that in the proceeding initiated against the petitioner vide Memorandum dated 15.09.2014 under Annexure- 1, the disciplinary authority who happens to be O.P. No.1 passed the order of punishment vide order dated 03.06.2017 under Annexure-3. As found from the said order, while imposing the punishment of censure, which is in the nature of a minor punishment, disciplinary authority treated the period of suspension as leave due and admissible for the period from 15.09.2014 to 18.10.2015. 6.1. As found, said order has been confirmed by the appellate authority vide order dated 23.03.2022 under Annexure-5. Placing reliance on the decision of this Page 4 of 5 // 5 // Court in the case of Bani Bhusan Dash so followed in the case of Md. Mumtaz Khan Vrs. State of Odisha and Others, it is the view of this Court that while imposing the punishment of Censure which is in the nature of a minor punishment, period of suspension could not have been treated as leave due and admissible instead of treating the same as duty for all purposes. 6.2. Therefore, while not interfering with the order of punishment so far as it relates to the punishment of censure, this Court is inclined to interfere with the punishment so far as it relates to treating the period of suspension as leave due and admissible. While quashing that part of the order, this Court directs O.P. No.1 to treat the period of suspension as duty for all purposes and extend the benefit as due and admissible. This Court directs O.P. No.1 to extend the benefit as due and admissible within a period of 2 (two) months from the date of receipt of this order. 7. The Writ Petition stands disposed of accordingly. Basudev Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BASUDEV SWAIN Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Date: 06-Aug-2025 18:55:37 (Biraja Prasanna Satapathy) Judge Page 5 of 5