The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C) No.17805 of 2022 Premananda Mahapatra …. Petitioner Mr. P.K. Mishra, Advocate State of Odisha and Others -versus- …. Opposite Parties
Legal Reasoning
Mr. S.P. Das, ASC CORAM: JUSTICE BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY Order No.
Decision
ORDER 02.09.2025 02. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual/Physical) Mode. 2. Heard Mr. P.K. Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. S.P. Das, learned Addl. Standing Counsel for the State. 3. Petitioner has filed the present Writ Petition inter alia challenging order of punishment passed against the petitioner vide order dated 27.06.2022 under Annexure-16 of O.P. No.1. 4. It is contended that in the proceeding initiated against the petitioner vide Memorandum dated 01.01.2021 under Annexure-6, petitioner participated in the said proceeding with filing of the written statement of defence. Not only that petitioner also // 2 // participated in the enquiry and after issuance of the 1st and 2nd show cause, the proceeding was disposed of with imposition of the punishment vide the impugned order dated 27.06.2022 under Annexure-16. It is contended that vide the impugned order, the following punishment was imposed:- “(i)Stoppage of one increment without cumulative effect and (ii) the period of suspension treated as leave due and admissible.” 4.1. It is contended that since stoppage of one increment without cumulative effect is a minor punishment as provided under Rule-13 of OCS(CCA) Rules, 1962, while imposing such a punishment, period of suspension could not have been treated 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), so followed by this Court in the case of Dr. Smita Mohanty Vrs. State of Odisha and Others (W.P.C(OA) No.2585 of 2016. 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 Page 2 of 5 // 3 // 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 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 imposing minor the departmental proceeding by 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.” 4.2. Similarly, this Court in the case of Dr. Smita Mohanty has held as follows in Para 6:- taking into account “6. Having heard learned counsel appearing for the the materials Parties and available on record, it is found that while disposing the proceeding the Petitioner was imposed with a minor punishment i.e. stoppage of two increments without cumulative effect. On the face of such punishment imposed and in view of the decisions as cited supra, the period of suspension should not have been treated as such instead of treating the same as Page 3 of 5 // 4 // duty. Therefore, this Court is inclined to quash the order so far as it relates to treat the period of suspension as such. While quashing the same, this Court directs the Opp. Party No. 1 to treat the period of suspension as duty and extend the financial benefit as due and admissible in favour of the Petitioner. Such an exercise shall be undertaken and completed by the O.P. No 1 within a period of two (2) months from the date of receipt of this order.” 4.3. It is accordingly contended that the impugned order of punishment so far as it relates to treating the period of suspension as leave due and admissible is not sustainable in the eye of law. 5. Learned Addl. Standing Counsel on the other hand while supporting the impugned order contended that since there is no allegation that the proceeding was not conducted in accordance with OCS(CCA) Rules, 1962, nor there is violation of the principle of natural justice, no interference is called for. 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 01.01.2021 under Annexure- 6, O.P. No.1 being the Disciplinary Authority while disposing the proceeding passed the impugned order on 27.06.2022 under Annexure-16. As found, O.P. No.1 imposed the punishment of stoppage of one increment without cumulative effect and the period of suspension was treated as leave due and admissible. 6.1. Placing reliance on the decision of this Court in the case of Bani Bhusan Dash so followed in the case Page 4 of 5 // 5 // of Dr. Smita Mohanty as cited (supra), it is the view of this Court that, since while disposing the proceeding, punishment of stoppage of one increment without cumulative effect, which is a minor punishment was passed, while imposing such a punishment, period of suspension could not have been treated as leave due and admissible. 6.2. Therefore, this Court is inclined to interfere with the impugned order dated 27.06.2022, so far as it relates to imposition of the punishment of 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 pass a fresh order by treating the period of suspension as duty for all purposes and extend the benefit as due and admissible including Revision of Pension. This Court directs O.P. No.1 to complete the entire exercise within a period of 4 (four) months from the date of receipt of this order. 7. The Writ Petition stands disposed of accordingly. (Biraja Prasanna Satapathy) Judge Basudev Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BASUDEV SWAIN Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Date: 04-Sep-2025 11:51:57 Page 5 of 5