The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C) No.15650 OF 2022 In the matter of an application under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India ……………… Dibya Ranjan Biswal Petitioner …. -versus- State of Odisha & Others …. Opp. Parties For Petitioner : Ms. B.K. Pattanaik, Advocate For Opp. Parties : Mr. A. Tripathy, Addl. Govt. Advocate PRESENT: THE HONBLE MR.JUSTICE BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY ------------------------------------------------------------------ Date of Hearing:28.10.2025 and Date of Judgment:28.10.2025 -- --------------------------------------------------------------------- Biraja Prasanna Satapathy, J. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Mode.
Legal Reasoning
2. Heard learned counsel appearing for the parties. 3. The present Writ Petition has been filed inter alia challenging the order of punishment passed against the // 2 // Petitioner vide order dt.26.10.2016 under Annexure-5, so confirmed by the Appellate authority vide his order dt.31.10.2017 under Annexure-7 and by the revisional authority vide order dt.24.01.2018 under Annexure-9 and subsequent order passed on dt.16.06.2022 under Annexure-11, in the proceeding initiated on 28.02.2015 under Annexure-1. 4. It is contended that Petitioner while continuing in Service as a Fireman in the establishment of Opp. party No.4, a proceeding was initiated against him vide Memorandum dtd.28.02.2015 under Annexure-1 inter alia on the ground that Petitioner remained on unauthorized leave for the period 13.07.2014 to 06.11.2015. 4.1. Learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner contended that Petitioner while continuing as a Fireman, he availed leave w.e.f 08.07.2014 to 12.07.2014 with due sanction of the C.L. But since Petitioner remained under treatment in S.C.B Medical College and Hospital, Cuttack w.e.f 12.07.2014 vide O.P.D Regd. No.124115 Page 2 of 11 // 3 // dtd.12.07.2014 till 27.10.2015, he could not join in his services for the period from 13.07.2014 to 27.10.2015. 4.2. Even though such a stand was taken by the Petitioner in his Written Statement of Defence and the Inquiry Officer while accepting such stand of the Petitioner, gave the finding that sick period of the Petitioner w.e.f 12.07.2014 to 28.10.2015 is duly proved, save and except for the period 28.10.2015 to 05.11.2015, but Opp. Party No.4 being the Disciplinary authority without accepting the finding of the Inquiry Officer, issued the 1st and thereafter the 2nd show-cause on 22.06.2016 under Annexure-4, proposing therein to treat the period from 13.07.2014 to 05.11.2015 as Leave without Pay. 4.3.
Legal Reasoning
It is contended that Petitioner though submitted his reply to the 2nd show-cause but without proper appreciation of the same, the proceeding was disposed of by Opp. Party No.4 vide the impugned order dt.26.10.2016 under Annexure-5, wherein the period 13.07.2014 to 05.11.2015 was treated as Leave without Pay and the Petitioner was censured. Page 3 of 11 // 4 // 4.4. It is contended that even though Petitioner moved the Appellate authority as well as the Revisional authority, but his prayer was rejected vide orders issued under Annexures-7,9 & 11 respectively. 4.5. It is contended that while availing leave for the period from 08.07.2014 to 12.07.2014, Petitioner remained under treatment in S.C.B. Medical College and Hospital, Cuttack for the period from 12.07.2014 to 27.10.2015 and he was declared fit to resume his duty w.e.f 28.10.2015. Such plea taken by the Petitioner was duly considered and accepted by the Inquiry Officer in his report under Annexure-3. However, Opp. party No.4 being the Disciplinary Authority, without proper appreciation of the Petitioner’s stand and the report submitted by the Inquiry Officer under Anexure-3, not only proposed to treat the period from 28.10.2015 to 05.11.2015 as Leave without Pay, but also confirmed the same with passing of the impugned order under Annexure-5. 4.6. It is also contended that even though challenging the order passed under Annexure-5, Petitioner moved the Page 4 of 11 // 5 // appellate authority as well as Revisional Authority, but Opp. party No.3 being the Appellate Authority rejected the appeal vide order dt.31.10.2017 under Annexure-7. Not only that Opp. Party No.2 being the revisional authority also rejected the revision vide order dt.24.01.2018 under Annexure-8 and the mercy petition vide order under Annexure-11 dt.16.06.2022, without proposing appreciation. 4.7. Learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner contended that on the face of the document being produced by the Petitioner that he was under treatment in the S.C.B Medical College and Hospital, Cuttack for the period 12.07.2014 to 27.10.2015, the said period could not have been treated as Leave without Pay. It is also contended that during the relevant time, Petitioner was leave in his account and the said period should have been treated as Leave due and admissible. It is accordingly contended that the impugned orders are not sustainable in the eye of law and requires interference of this Court. Page 5 of 11 // 6 // 5. Mr. A. Tripathy, learned Addl. Govt. Advocate while supporting the impugned order contended that since Petitioner after availing leave for the period 08.07.2012 to 12.07.2014, never joined in his work and remained on unauthorized absence for the period from 13.07.2014 to 05.11.2015 without submitting any leave application the proceeding against the Petitioner was initiated with the charges that Petitioner remained on unauthorized absent from 13.07.2014 to 05.11.2015 under Annexure-1. Even though the Inquiry Officer in his report under Annexure- 3, held that Petitioner has proved his leave for the period from 12.07.2014 to 28.10.2015, but Opp. party No.4 being the Disciplinary Authority while disagreeing with the finding of the Inquiry Officer, issued the 2nd show- cause under Anexure-4, while proposing to treat the period from 13.07.2014 to 05.11.2015 as Leave without Pay. With due consideration of the reply so made by the Petitioner to the 2nd show-cause, while disposing the proceeding vide order dt.26.10.2016 under Anexure-5, Opp. Party No.4 imposed the punishment to treat the Page 6 of 11 // 7 // period from 13.07.2014 to 05.11.2015 as Leave without Pay. 5.1. It is contended that Appeal and Revision filed by the Petitioner against such order of punishment was also rejected by Opp. Party No.2 & 3 vide orders issued under Annexures-7,9 & 11. It is accordingly contended that since the order of punishment passed by the Disciplinary authority is confirmed by the Appellate authority as well as the Revisional authority and there is no allegation that the proceeding was not conducted in accordance with law, no interference is called for to the order of punishment passed under Annexure-5. Learned Addl. Govt. Advocate relies on the stand taken in Para-7 of the Counter affidavit in support of his aforesaid submission. Para-7 of the counter affidavit reads as follows: 7. That, in reply to the assertions made at Paragraph No.5 of the Writ Petition, this deponent humbly begs to submit that there was no afogle application of the Petitioner for extension of leave or any treatment received at this end. It is made clear from medical certificate produced by the Petitioner during the course of enquiry that, he was undergoing treatment as an outdoor patient. intimation regarding his medical It is apparent from the record that, the Petitioner availed leave w.e.f. 08-07-2014 for his ill health treatment, but the Petitioner in a pre-planned manner Page 7 of 11 // 8 // on the last day of leave Le on 12-07-2014 visited to the hospital to keep the authority in blind with the help of such arranged medical document. Besides, the Petitioner in-between the whole over stayal period has neither submitted his representation for extension of leave nor submitted the medical record towards his treatment. The Petitioner furnished the arranged medical documents during the course of regular departmental inquiry, which clearly shows the ill Intention of the Petitioner. Thus, the allegation made in this para is not true. 6. To the submission made by the learned Addl. Govt. Advocate, Ms. B.K. Pattanaik, learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner made further submission inter alia contending that after availing leave for the period 08.07.2014 to 12.07.2014, when Petitioner because of his suffering and treatment in S.C.B Medical College & Hospital, Cuttack, could not join on 13.07.2014, he submitted leave applications under Annexure-2 series seeking extension of the leave from time to time. Not only that, Petitioner though submitted his joining after being declared fit on 28.10.2015 so enclosed under Annexure-2 series, but his joining was not accepted which was ultimately accepted on 06.11.2015. It is accordingly contended that the ground on which the Petitioner has been imposed with the punishment to Page 8 of 11 // 9 // treat the period 13.07.2014 to 5.11.2015 as leave without pay is not sustainable in the eye of law. 7. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and considering the submission made, it is found that the Petitioner while in service, the proceeding in question was initiated against him vide Memorandum dtd28.02.2015 under Annexure-1. In the said proceeding, charge was framed with regard to unauthorized absence of the Petitioner for the period from 13.07.2014 to 05.11.2015. 7.1. This Court after going through the materials available on record finds that Petitioner in support of his absence for the period from 12.07.2014 to 27.10.2015 produced various documents before the Inquiry Officer with regard to his treatment in S.C.B Medical College and Hospital, Cuttack. Such stand of the Petitioner that he was under treatment from 12.07.2014 to 27.10.2015 was accepted by the Inquiry Officer while submitting his report under Annexure-3. On the face of such finding of the Inquiry Officer, the period in question was treated as Leave without Pay vide the impugned order passed under Annexure-5, further confirmed by the Appellate authority Page 9 of 11 // 10 // and the Revisional Authority vide orders issued under Annexures-7,9 & 11. 7.2. Considering the Inquiry report available under Annexure-3 and the fact that Petitioner was under treatment for the period 12.07.2014 to 27.10.2015 in S.C.B Medical College and Hospital, Cuttack which was duly proved before the Inquiry Officer, it is the view of this Court that the period in question could not have been treated as Leave without Pay. 7.3. Accordingly, this Court while is inclined to interfere with order dt.26.10.2016 so passed by Opp. Party No.4 under Annexure-5, further confirmed by Opp. Party No.3 in his order dt.31.10.2017 under Annexure-7 and by Opp. Party No.2 vide his order dt.24.01.2018 and 16.06.2022 under Annexures-9 & 11, quash the orders accordingly. 7.4. While quashing the orders under Annexures-5,7,9 & 11, this Court directs Opp. Party No.4 to treat the period from 12.07.2014 to 05.11.2015 as “Leave due and admissible” and pass an appropriate order in that regard Page 10 of 11 // 11 // and extend the benefit as due and admissible. This Court directs Opp. Party No.4 to complete the entire within a period of 2 (two) months from the date of receipt of this Order.
Decision
7.5. The Writ Petition accordingly stands disposed of. (Biraja Prasanna Satapathy) Judge Orissa High Court, Cuttack Dated the 28th October, 2025/sangita Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: SANGITA PATRA Reason: authenticaiton of order Location: high ocurt of orissa, cuttack Date: 06-Nov-2025 15:04:30 Page 11 of 11