The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C) No.26488 of 2024 Baina Charan Panda …. Petitioner Mr. S.P. Swain, Advocate State of Odisha and Others -versus- …. Opposite Parties Mr. S. Das, ASC CORAM: JUSTICE BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY
Decision
ORDER 18.09.2025 Order No. 03. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual/Physical) Mode. 2. At the outset, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that he does not intend to file any rejoinder affidavit. 3. Heard Mr. S.P. Swain, learned counsel for the Petitioner and Mr. S. Das, learned Addl. Standing Counsel for the State. 4. Petitioner has filed the present Writ Petition inter alia challenging the order of punishment passed by the O.P. No.1 vide order dated 24.12.2008 under Annexure-6 further confirmed by the Appellate Authority vide order dated 19.04.2024 under Annexure-10. // 2 // 5. It is contended that in the proceeding initiated against the petitioner vide Memorandum dated 22.12.2006 under Annexure-2, petitioner not only filed his written statement of defence but he participated in the enquiry. It is also contended that after following due procedure of law, petitioner was imposed with the punishment vide order dated 24.12.2008 under Annexure-6. 5.1. It is contended that since petitioner was imposed with the punishment of Censure which is a minor punishment as provided under Rule-13 of OCS(CCA) Rules, 1962, on the face of such punishment being imposed against the petitioner, period of suspension could not have been treated as such. 5.2. In support of his aforesaid submission, reliance was placed to a decision of this Court in the case of Bani Bhusan Dash Vs. State of Odisha and Others (W.P.(C) No.7635 of 2019) so followed by this Court in its order dated 10.01.2024 in W.P.(C) No.42329 of 2023. This Court in the case of Bani Bhusan Dash in Para-10 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 Page 2 of 6 // 3 // for from leave to keep to revoke certain period under the manner to treat the period of suspension at the time of passing final order in the departmental the proceeding. The authorities are the said suspension as such or suspension order by revising the period of suspension as duty, as because honouring non- engagement 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 the competent concerned seeks authority certain circumstances. The authority cannot initiate a proposal from its side in assumption of leave application 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 the after circumstances, such concluding departmental proceeding by imposing minor 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.” from 5.3. Following the decision of this Court in the case of Bani Bhusan Dash, this Court in W.P.(C) No.42329 of 2023 in Para-6 of order dated 10.01.2024 has held as follows:- Page 3 of 6 // 4 // “6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and placing reliance on the decision of this Court in the case of Bani Bhusan Dash as cited (supra), this Court is of the view that once a minor punishment is imposed, period of suspension cannot be treated as such and it has to be treated as duty. In view of such position, this Court is inclined to quash the order passed under Annexures-5 and 8, so far as it relates to treating the period of suspension as such. While interfering with the same, this Court quash the order to treat the period of suspension as such so passed under Annexures-5 and 8 and directs Opp. Party No.3 to pass a fresh order by treating the said period as duty. Such a fresh order be passed within a period of 6(six) weeks from the date of receipt of this order. Consequential financial benefit as due and admissible be also released, within a further period of 4 (four) weeks on passing of the order as directed.” 5.4. It is contended that challenging such order of punishment, petitioner though filed an appeal but the Appellate Authority without proper appreciation, rejected the appeal vide order dated 19.04.2024 under Annexure- 10. 5.5. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that since punishment of censure is a minor punishment in view of the decision in the case of Bani Bhusan Dash as cited (supra), period of suspension could not have been treated as such and it should have been treated as duty for all purposes. 6. Learned Addl. Standing Counsel on the other hand basing on the stand taken in the counter affidavit though does not dispute the nature of punishment imposed under Annexure-6 so confirmed vide order under Annexure-10, but contended that since there is no Page 4 of 6 // 5 // allegation that rules governing the proceeding has been violated or petitioner has not been given due opportunity of hearing, no interference is called for. 6.1. It is also contended that since the order of punishment has been confirmed by the Appellate Authority and petitioner has only been imposed with the minor punishment and period of suspension has been treated as such, no illegality or irregularity can be found. 7. 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 22.12.2006 under Annexure-2, after following due procedure of law, which is not disputed, petitioner was imposed with the punishment vide order dated 24.12.2008 under Annexure-6. As found, vide the said order, petitioner was imposed with the punishment of censure and while imposing such a punishment, the period of suspension was treated as such. Order passed by the Disciplinary Authority has been confirmed by the Appellate Authority vide order dated 19.04.2024 under Annexure-10. 7.1. Placing reliance on the decision of this Court in the case of Bani Bhusan Dash as cited (supra) so followed in W.P.(C) No.42329 of 2023, it is the view of this Court that once minor punishment is imposed, period of suspension cannot be treated as such. Therefore, while interfering Page 5 of 6 // 6 // with that part of the order, where the period of suspension is treated as such, this Court is inclined to quash the said order. While quashing the same, 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 in favour of the petitioner. This Court directs O.P. No.1 to do the needful within a period of 2 (two) months from the date of receipt of this order. 8. The Writ Petition is accordingly disposed of. (Biraja Prasanna Satapathy) Judge Basudev Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BASUDEV SWAIN Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Date: 22-Sep-2025 12:31:30 Page 6 of 6