The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK WP(C) No.33928 of 2023 ..... Nimain Charan Routray Petitioner Mr. G.R. Sethi, Advocate State of Odisha & Ors. -versus- ..... Opposite Parties Mr. B. Nayak, AGA THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY CORAM:
Decision
ORDER 06.08.2025 Order No.04 1. This matter is taken up through hybrid mode. 2. Heard Mr. G.R. Sethi, learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner and Mr. B. Nayak, learned Addl. Govt. Advocate appearing for the Opp. Parties. 3. The present writ petition has been filed inter alia with the following prayer:- “It is therefore humbly prayed that this Hon’ble Court may graciously be pleased to admit the case, call for the records and after hearing both the parties pass the following reliefs; i. To quash the order dated 16.08.2023 under Annexure-8. ii. iii. iv. v. To quash the order dtd.05.11.2004 under Annexure-2. To quash the order dated 29.08.2005 under Annexure-3 To quash the order dated 23.10.2008 under Annexure-4 To direct the Opposite Parties to release the increment w.e.f. 25.11.2004 and accordingly fix his pension in appropriate scale.” 4. Learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner contended that in the proceeding initiated vide Memorandum dtd.09.08.1996 under Annexure-1, Petitioner participated in the same and after due compliance of the relevant provisions, Petitioner was imposed with Page 1 of 4. the punishment of forfeiture of increment for a period of 12 months carrying value of two black marks with cumulative effect and the suspension period from 04.07.1996 to 31.07.1996 is treated as such. 4.1. Against such order of punishment passed under Annexure-2, Petitioner though preferred an appeal, but the appellate authority without proper appreciation of the relevant provisions contained under PMR-824 while upholding the order of punishment, rejected the appeal vide order dtd.29.08.2005 under Annexure-3. Thereafter, petitioner preferred Revision before the Opp. Party No.2, vide order dated 23.10.2008, the same has been rejected. Against that order, the petitioner preferred memorial before the Opp. Party No.1, the same has also been rejected on 16.08.2023. Placing reliance on the provisions contained under Rule 824 of the PMR, it is contended that while imposing the punishment of forfeiture of increment for a period of 12 months carrying value of two black marks, the period of suspension could not have been treated as such. 4.2. In support of his submissions, reliance was placed to a decision of this Court passed in W.P.C.(OAC) No. 761 of 2018 vide order dtd.09.04.2024. This Court in Para 6 & 6.1 of the said 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 Page 2 of 4. 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 accordingly contended that in view of the nature of order passed in the aforesaid writ petition, the order of punishment so far as it relates to treating the period of suspension as such is not sustainable in the eye of law and it requires interference of this Court. 5. Mr. B. Nayak, learned Addl. Govt. Advocate while on the other hand supporting the impugned order passed under Annexure-2, confirmed in appeal under Annexure-3 and Revisional Authority’s order under annexure-4 as well as order passed in Memorial, contended that since there is no allegation of non-compliance of the principle of natural justice nor the Rules governing the field, the impugned order needs no interference of this Court. It is also contended that in the meantime Petitioner has been allowed to retire from his services on attaining the age of superannuation w.e.f.30.04.2021 and accordingly he is no way prejudiced. Page 3 of 4. 6. Having heard learned counsel appearing for the Parties and considering the submissions made and placing reliance on the order passed by this Court in W.P.C.(OAC) No. 761 of 2018 so cited (supra), this Court is of the view that while imposing the order of punishment of forfeiture of increment for a period of 12 months carrying value of two black marks with cumulative effect and the suspension period from 04.07.1996 to 31.07.1996 could not have been treated as such vide the impugned order dt.05.11.2024 so passed by Opp. Party No. 4 under Annexure-2 further confirmed order under Annexure-3, 4 & 8 respectively. 6.1. In that view of the matter, this Court while interfering with the impugned orders passed under Annexure-2, confirmed under Annexure-3, 4 & 8, is inclined to quash all the orders so far as it relates to treating the period of suspension as such. While quashing that part of the order, this Court directs Opp. Party No. 4 to pass a fresh order by treating the said period as duty for all purposes and extend the benefit as due and admissible. This Court directs Opp. Party No. 4 to complete the entire exercise within a period of three (3) months from the date of receipt of this order. 7. The writ petition accordingly stands disposed of. (BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY) Judge Basudev Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BASUDEV SWAIN Designation: SR. STENO Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Date: 18-Aug-2025 18:39:38 Page 4 of 4.