The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C ) No.25474 of 2025 Suman Gochhayat …. Petitioner Mr. L. Pradhan, Adv. -versus- State of Odisha & Others …. Opposite Parties Mr.S.P. Das, ASC COROM: THE HON’BLE JUSTICE BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY Order No ORDER 20.09.2025 1. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Mode. 2.
Legal Reasoning
Heard learned counsel appearing for the parties. 3. The present Writ Petition has been filed inter alia with the following prayer: It is therefore prayed your Lordship may graciously be pleased to issue a Rule Nisi in the nature of Mandamus calling upon the Opp. Parties to show cause as to why: vide Annexure-6,7 & dt.09.10.2020,27.05.2021 The impugned punishment imposed upon the & Petitioner 26.08.2022 8 respectively will not be quashed and suspension period of the Petitioner from 10.05.2018 to 14.11.2018 (41 days) will not be treated as duty on leave dues as due and admissible and be regularised as leave dues under the Orissa Leave Rules, 1966. II. Pass any other order (s) as deem fit and proper. // 2 // If the opp. Parties will fail to show cause to show insufficient or false cause made the said Rule Nisi absolute and allow the Writ Petition. And for this act of your kindness the Petitioner as in duty bound shall ever pray. 4. It is contended that in the proceeding initiated against the Petitioner vide Memorandum dt.27.11.2018 under Annexure-3, Petitioner participated in the proceeding by filing his Written Statement of defence. However, without proper appreciation of the stand taken by the Petitioner, Opp. Party No.4 while disposing the Proceeding vide the impugned order dt.11.12.2020, imposed the punishment of one Black Mark and treated the period of suspension from 05.10.2018 to 14.11.2018 “as such”, Petitioner challenging the same moved the appellate authority-Opp. Party No.2, but the appellate authority confirmed the order of punishment so passed. Accordingly, Petitioner moved the Revisional Authority- Opp. Party No.2.
Legal Reasoning
4.1. It is contended that Opp. Party No.2 while disposing the Revision vide order dt.30.08.2022 under Annexure- 8 quashed the punishment of one Black Mark and modified the same to a punishment of “Censure in SB”. However, Opp. Party No.2 upheld the order treating the period of suspension “as such”. It is contended that punishment to treat period of suspension “as such”, since is not prescribed under PMR-824, such a Page 2 of 7 // 3 // punishment could not have been imposed on the Petitioner althrough. PMR-824 reads as follows: "824. Description of departmental punishments. The following punishments which are sanctioned u/s 7 of Act. V of 1861 may be inflicted departmentally on a police officer of and below the rank of Inspector:- (a ) Dismissal (b) Removal [b-1]-Compulsory retirement; and] ' Reduction in rank, (d) Reduction in time-scale (e) Withholding of the next increment for a specific offence, with or without corresponding postponement of subsequent increments, (f ) Black mark or marks, (g) Removal from any office of distinction or specific emolument, (h) Censure, (i) Warning, (j) Confinements to quarters for a period not exceeding 15 days, (k) punishment drill, and (l) Extra guard or other duty: Provided that the punishments mentioned in Clauses (i) to (m) shall not be imposed on any officer of or above the rank of Sub-Inspector nor the punishment mentioned in (I) on any Assistant sub-inspector, Constable of Ordinary Reserve and Havildar of Armed Reserve Punishments mentioned in Clauses (a) to (h) are classed as major and the rest are minor. All major punishments and censure shall be entered Page 3 of 7 // 4 // in the service book other minor punishments may be so entered if the officer awarding the punishment so directs. Note 1:- Superintendents may use the orderly Room Register in P.M. Form No. 114 when dealing with cases of misconduct and breaches of discipline in which the punishments mentioned In Clauses (k) to (1) are imposed. Note 2:- Forfeiture of pay for overstaying have (Service Code Rule 144) and deductions from pay on account of loss or damage to Government property shall not be treated as punishment. Note 3:- For purposes of punishment an officer, while officiating In a higher rank, shall be treated as belonging to that rank.” 4.2. It is contended that in similar issue, this Court has already taken a view that order of suspension cannot be treated as such, as no such punishment is prescribed under PMR-824. View expressed by this Court in Para 6. of order dt.09.04.2024 so passed in WPC (OAC ) No.761 of 2018 reads as follows: 6. Having heard learned counsel for the Parties, considering the materials available on record and the nature of charges framed against the Petitioner, this Court finds that proceeding against the Petitioner was conducted in accordance with law and no plea has been raised with regard to non- compliance of any statutory provision while conducting the proceeding and so also the enquiry. Therefore, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the order of punishment so far as it relates to imposition of one black mark. But since no such the period of to order of punishment suspension as such is prescribed under PMR-824, placing reliance on the said provisions and the decision as cited supra, this Court is of the view that no such order of punishment to treat the period of suspension could have been passed while imposing punishment of one black mark. Therefore, this Court is inclined to quash the order of treat Page 4 of 7 // 5 // punishment so far as it relates to treating the period of suspension as such. While interfering with the same, this Court is inclined to quash the order to treat the period of suspension as such and quash the same accordingly. 4.3. It is accordingly contended that while upholding the punishment of Censure so imposed by the Revisional Authority-Opp. Party No.2, period of suspension be treated as duty. 5. Mr. S.P. Das, learned Addl. Standing Counsel on the other hand contended that since order of punishment passed by the Disciplinary Authority under Annexure-6 after being confirmed by the Appellate Authority has already been modified with quashing of the order of punishment so far as imposition of one Black Mark is concerned, Petitioner has got no further grievance to make against such order of punishment. 5.1. It is contended that since the Revisional Authority quashed the order of punishment, so far as it relates to imposition of one “Black Mark” is concerned, treating the period of suspension as such requires no interference. 6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and considering the submission made, this Court finds that in the proceeding initiated against the Petitioner vide Memorandum dt.27.11.2018 under Annexure-3, Petitioner was imposed with the punishment of one Black Mark and period of suspension was treated “as Page 5 of 7 // 6 // such” vide order dt.11.12.2020 under Annexure-6 of Opp. Party No.4. 6.1. As found, such order of punishment was confirmed by the Appellate Authority vide order dt.27.05.2021 under Annexure-7. Petitioner when moved the Revisional Authority, O.P.No.2 vide order dt.30.08.2022 under Annexure-8 while quashing the punishment of one Black Mark, modified it to a punishment of “Censure”. But the period of suspension treated “as such” by the Disciplinary authority, further confirmed by the Appellate Authority was confirmed by the Revisional Authority vide order under Annexure-8. 6.2. Placing reliance on the provisions contained under PMR-824 and the decision as cited supra, it is the view of this Court that while imposing the punishment of Censure which is a minor punishment, period of suspension could not have been treated “as such”. 6.3. Therefore, this Court is inclined to quash the order passed by the Disciplinary Authority, confirmed by the Appellate Authority as well as by the Revisional Authority in treating the period of suspension “as such” from 05.10.2018 to 14.11.2018 vide orders issued under Annexure-6,7 & 8. While quashing that part of the order, this Court directs Opp. Party No.4 to treat the period of suspension as duty for all purposes and disburse the entitlement as due and admissible in Page 6 of 7 // 7 // favour of the Petitioner. This Court directs Opp. Party No.4 to complete the entire exercise within a period of two (2) months from the date of receipt of this order.
Decision
6.4. The Writ Petition accordingly stands disposed of. sangita (Biraja Prasanna Satapathy) Judge Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: SANGITA PATRA Reason: authenticaton of order Location: high court of orissa, cuttack Date: 23-Sep-2025 13:54:08 Page 7 of 7