The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK WPC(OA) No.2007 of 2019 Prasanna Kumar Satapathy ..... Petitioner Mr. P.C. Mohapatra, Advocate -versus- ..... Opposite Parties Mr. M.K. Balabantaray, AGA 1) State Of Odisha 2) Reserve Inspector Of Police, Berhampur 3) Superintendent Of Police, Berhampur 4) Director General And Inspector General Of Police, CTC 5) Dig Of Police, Berhampur
Legal Reasoning
THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY CORAM:
Decision
ORDER 22.04.2024 Order No. 09 1. This matter is taken up through hybrid mode. 2. Heard Mr. P.C. Mohapatra, learned counsel for the Petitioner and Mr. M.K. Balabantaray, learned Addl. Govt. Advocate appearing for the Opp. Parties. 3. Petitioner has filed the present writ petition inter alia challenging the impugned communication dtd.16.12.2018 so available under Annexure-6 and obtained under the RTI. 4. It is contended that in the proceeding initiated against the Petitioner, Petitioner was imposed with the following punishment vide order dtd.17.12.2014 under Annexure-4:- Page 1 of 4. “One Black Mark equivalent to forfeiture of Six months increment not cumulative effect.” 4.1. It is contended that on the face of such order of punishment imposed vide order under Annexure-4, Petitioner when was not extended with the benefit of RACP as due and admissible, he approached the Tribunal in O.A. No. 2156 of 2018. The Tribunal vide its order dtd.15.05.2019 under Annexure-7 while disposing the O.A., issued the following direction:- “11) Hence, in the result the impugned order at Annexure-5 and 6 stands quashed. The case of the applicant for promotion to the rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police be considered in a review DPC against the DPC of 2011 wherein ’one black mark’ which is at his credit is to be treated as awarded in 2002 and cannot be treated as awarded within five years from the date of DPC 2011 and accordingly, if he is otherwise found suitable then he be given promotion to the post of Deputy Superintendent of Police retrospectively w.e.f. date his junior has been promoted to the rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police and his case also be considered for next promotion, if his juniors have been promoted by constituting another review DPC for the higher post and if he is promoted in the review DPC as stated above, then he is entitled to the service and financial benefits. All these exercise be completed within four months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.” 4.2. It is contended that on the plea that Petitioner is not eligible and entitled to get the benefit of RACP till completion of 5 years from the date of imposition of the punishment, Petitioner’s claim was rejected vide impugned communication issued on 16.12.2018 under Annexure-6. Page 2 of 4. 4.3. Learned counsel for the Petitioner contended that there is no such provision in resolution dtd.06.02.2013 so issued by the Govt. in the Finance Department under Annexure-5 that an employee is to be debarred to get the benefit of RACP till completion of 5 years from the date of imposition of punishment. 4.4. It is also contended that the punishment of one Black Mark so imposed against the Petitioner is not a major punishment and in fact it is a minor punishment. It is accordingly contended that the rejection of the Petitioner’s claim to get the benefit of RACP so reflected in the impugned communication dtd.16.12.2018 under Annexure-6 is not sustainable in the eye of law. 5. Mr. M.K. Balabantaray, learned Addl. Govt. Advocate while basing on the stand taken in the counter affidavit supported the impugned order, this Court passed the following order on 10.04.2024:- “As requested by Mr. M.K. Balabantaray, learned Addl. Government Advocate for the State, list this matter on 22nd April, 2024. On the next date, he is directed to satisfy this Court as to under which provision a person will not get the benefit of RACP till completion of five years from the date of imposition of punishment.” 6. Today when the matter was taken up learned Addl. Govt. Advocate fairly contended that there is no such provision to deny the benefit of RACP till completion of 5 years from the date of imposition of punishment. It is however contended that the punishment so imposed against the Petitioner vide Annexure-6 is a major punishment in view of the provisions contained under PMR- 824. PMR-824 reads as follows:- Page 3 of 4. “Punishment mentioned in Clauses (a) to (h) are classed as major and the rest are minor. Punishment of black mark or mark is reflected under PMR 824 (f).” 7. Having heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and considering the submission made by the leaned Addl. Govt. Advocate that there is no such provision to withhold the benefit of increment for a period of 5 years from the date of punishment, this Court is inclined to interfere with the impugned order so far as it relates to denial of the benefit of RACP till completion of 5 years from the date of imposition of punishment. While quashing that part of the order, this Court remits the matter to Opp. Party No. 3 to take a fresh decision on the claim of the Petitioner to get the benefit of 2nd & 3rd RACP from the date of his entitlement as it is contended that the same has been sanctioned after 5 years of the imposition of punishment. 7.1. If on such reconsideration, it is the found that the Petitioner is otherwise eligible to get the benefit of 2nd & 3rd RACP from the date of his entitlement, consequential follow up action be taken to sanction and release the differential amount as due and admissible. The entire exercise shall be completed within a period of three (3) months from the date of receipt of this order. 8. The writ petition is disposed of accordingly. Sneha Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: SNEHANJALI PARIDA Designation: Sr. Stenographer Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Date: 26-Apr-2024 18:00:55 (BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY) Judge Page 4 of 4.