The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C) No.24590 of 2024 Debasish Swain …. Petitioner Mr. G.R. Sethi, Advocate -versus- State of Odisha & Anr. …. Opp. Parties Mr. P.K. Panda, ASC CORAM: JUSTICE BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY ORDER 22.08.2025 Order No. 07. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual/Physical) 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 by the DG of Police-Opposite Party No.2 under Annexure-5, further confirmed by the appellate authority-Opposite Party No.1 vide order dtd.28.01.2024 under Annexure-7. Vide the said order while disposing the proceeding initiated against the Petitioner on 16.04.2021 under Annexure-1, the following punishment was passed:- (i) ‘punishment of one black mark, (ii) overstayal period from 09.08.2020 to 02.12.2020 was treated as no work no pay, (iii) the // 2 // period of suspension from 03.12.2020 to 10.10.2022 was treated as such. 4. It is contended that even though Petitioner preferred an appeal against such order before Opposite Party No.1, but the appeal was also rejected vide order dtd.28.01.2024 under Annexure-7. However, while rejecting the appeal, the appellate authority wrongly followed the provisions contained under OCS (CCA) Rules, 1962, which is not applicable to the case of the Petitioner and his claim is covered under the Odisha Police Manual. 4.1. It is further contended that since while disposing the proceeding, the disciplinary authority-Opposite Party No.2 imposed the punishment of one black mark while imposing such punishment, the order of punishment to treat the period from 09.08.2020 to 02.12.2020 as no work no pay and period of suspension from 03.12.2020 to 10.10.2022 as such, is not sustainable in the eye of law as there is no such
Legal Reasoning
punishment prescribed under the PMR. 4.2. Placing reliance on the provisions contained under PMR-824, it is contended that no such punishment to treat the period of overstayal as no work no pay and to treat the period of suspension, as such since is prescribed under PMR 824, no such punishment could have been imposed while disposing Page 2 of 7 // 3 // the proceeding with imposition of punishment of one black mark. In support of the submission, reliance was placed to a decision of this Court in WPC (OAC) No.761 of 2018 disposed of dtd.09.04.2024. This Court in Para-6 & 6.1. of the order has held 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 order of punishment to treat the period of 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 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. 6.1. While quashing the same, this Court directs Opp. Party No. 2 to treat the period of suspension as duty for all purposes and pass an appropriate order in that regard within a period of six (6) weeks from the date of receipt of this order. Consequential financial benefits as due and admissible be released within a further period of six (6) weeks”. 4.3. It is contended that even though such a plea was taken by the Petitioner in his appeal filed under Annexure-6, but the appellate authority on misconception and without proper appreciation of the provisions contained under PMR-824, confirmed the Page 3 of 7 // 4 // order of punishment vide order dtd.28.08.2024 under Annexure-7. Learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner contended that in absence of any such punishment prescribed under PMR 824, order of punishment so far as it relates to treating the period of overstayal from 09.08.2020 to 02.12.2020 as no work no pay and the period of suspension from 03.12.2020 to 10.10.2022 as such is not sustainable in the eye of law. It is also contended that because of the order of acquittal passed in the criminal proceeding, imposition of one black mark is not sustainable in the eye of law. 5. Learned Addl. Standing Counsel for the State on the other hand while supporting the impugned order contended that the proceeding was initiated against the Petitioner because of his implication in a criminal case in Capital P.S. Case No.300 of 2020, dtd.06.08.2020. 5.1. It is contended that Petitioner after such implication in the criminal case was arrested and remained in custody for the period from 09.08.2020 to 02.12.2020. After his release on bail, he was placed under suspension w.e.f. 03.12.2020 and continued as such till 10.10.2022, when he was reinstated. 5.2. It is contended that in the criminal proceeding when the Petitioner was acquitted vide judgment dtd.08.07.2022 he was reinstated in his services, wherein he joined on 11.10.2022. It is accordingly Page 4 of 7 // 5 // contended that because of his arrest and remaining in custody for the period from 09.08.2020 to 02.12.2020, the said period was treated as no work no pay and the period of suspension from 03.12.2020 to 10.10.2022 was treated as such as Petitioner because of the pendency of the criminal case remained under suspension. 5.3. It is accordingly contended that no illegality or irregularity can be found with regard to the treating the period of overstayal as no work no pay and the period of suspension as such, along with the punishment of one black mark. 6. Having heard learned counsel appearing for the Parties and considering the submissions made, this Court finds that Petitioner while in service and because of his arrest and implication in a criminal case, the proceeding was initiated against him vide Memorandum dtd.16.04.2021 under Annexure-1, vide proceeding No.02. It is not disputed that in the said criminal proceeding, Petitioner remained in custody for the period from 09.08.2020 to 02.12.2020. 6.1. It is also not disputed that because of the the criminal proceeding, so initiated against the Petitioner, he remained under suspension w.e.f. 03.12.2020 to 10.10.2022. However, Petitioner was acquitted vide Page 5 of 7 // 6 // judgment dtd.08.06.2022 and re-instated in his service, where he joined on 11.10.2022. 6.2. Considering the submissions made and the fact that Petitioner was involved in a criminal case, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the punishment so far as imposition of one black mark and treating the overstayal period as no work no pay. However, since there is no such punishment prescribed to treat the period of suspension as such under PMR 824, this Court is inclined to interfere with the order so far as it relates to treating the period of suspension as such. 6.3. Placing reliance on the decision as cited (supra) and the fact that Petitioner remained under suspension because of the pendency of the criminal proceeding as well as the departmental Proceeding and was re- instated immediately after his acquittal, this Court for the ends of justice is inclined to direct Opposite Party No.2 to treat the period of suspension from 03.12.2020 to 10.10.2022 as leave due and admissible and pass a fresh order within a period of two (2) months from the date of receipt of this order. On such regularization of the Period of suspension as leave due and admissible, consequential follow up action be taken to release the financial benefit if any in favour of the Petitioner. Page 6 of 7 // 7 //
Decision
7. Accordingly, the Writ Petition stands disposed of. (Biraja Prasanna Satapathy) Judge Subrat Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: SUBRAT KUMAR BARIK Reason: Authentication Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACK Date: 08-Sep-2025 18:41:02 Page 7 of 7