IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C) No.7771 of 2021 Sakti Prasan Sahoo …. Petitioner Mr. J.R. Kar, Advocate on behalf of Mr. K.N. Das, Adv. -versus- D.G. of Police, Fire Services, Cuttack and Others …. Opp. Parties Mr. C.K. Pradhan, AGA CORAM: JUSTICE BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY Order No ORDER 19.02.2026 04. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual/Physical) Mode. 2. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 3. The present Writ Petition has been filed inter alia with the following prayer: - “In view of the facts and in the circumstances as detailed above, it is, humbly prayed that the Hon’ble Court may be graciously be pleased to admit _ the wit petition and call for the records and issue Rule NISI calling upon the Opp. Parties to show cause as to why the impugned office order dated ‘21.12.2018 and rejection order dated 02.02.2021 shall not be quashed and why the petitioner shall not be allowed to avail the leave from 26.06.2018 to 7 29.06.201830 (three days) and the period from 30.06.2018 to 8.10.2018 (101) _ days as EL. due to his illness as he has sufficient number of E.L. in his credit instead of Leave without pay. p. 2 p. 2 And if the Opp. Parties fail to show cause or show insufficient cause, the said Rule be made absolute by issuing appropriate writ/writs.” 4. It is contended that while continuing in service in the establishment of Opp. Party No.2, petitioner submitted a leave application seeking C.L. of 3(three) days from 26.06.2018. However, since petitioner did not recover from her illness, she made an application on 30.06.2018 seeking extension of the C.L under Annexure-2 with a copy on Opp. Party No.3. 4.1. It is contended that subsequently after recovery from her illness and on being declared medically fit, petitioner joined in her duty on 09.10.2018. However, after her joining on 09.10.2018, the period from 26.06.2018 to 29.06.2018 was treated as earned leave and over-stayal period from 30.06.2018 to 08.10.2018 as leave without pay, vide order dated 21.12.2018 under Annexure-4. 4.2. Even though petitioner made a detailed representation before Opp. Party No.2 under Annexure-5, with a prayer to treat the period as E.L. in place of leave without pay, but the same was rejected vide the impugned order dated 02.02.2021 under Annexure-7. 4.3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that since petitioner because of her medical illness, could not join after availing C.L. till 29.06.2018 and on p. 3 p. 3 being declared medically fit by the Competent Medical Officer, she joined on 09.10.2018, the period in question could not have been treated as earned leave and leave without pay, instead of treating the same as leave due and admissible, vide the impugned order under Annexure-4 further confirmed vide order under Annexure-7. 4.4. It is accordingly contended that this Court while quashing both the orders, may direct Opp. Party No.2 to treat the period from 26.06.2018 to 08.10.2018 as leave due and admissible instead of earned leave and leave without pay. 5. Learned Addl. Govt. Advocate on the other hand while supporting the impugned order, made his submission basing on the stand taken in the counter affidavit so filed by Opp. Party No.2. It is contended that petitioner after availing C.L. for the period 26.06.2018 to 29.06.2018, since remained on unauthorized leave for the period from 30.06.2018 to 08.10.2018, the said period has been treated as leave without pay in terms of the provisions contained under PMR 843. PMR 843 reads as follows:- “843. Absence without leave:- Wilful overstayal of leave, absence from duty without leave or absence from the Station, except on duty or permission, shall be treated misconduct and proceedings shall invariably be drawn up and departmental punishment inflicted in addition to the forfeiture of pay provided for by Rule 803. Police officers who absent themselves without leave are liable also to prosecution under Section 29 of p. 4 p. 4 the Act V of 1861, as amended by Section 9 of Act VIII of 1895. Prosecutions, however, should only be instituted in exceptional circumstances. As a rule when an officer does not return within one week of the expiry of his leave, enquiries shall be made from the Superintendent of his native district and should there be good ground for his absence, he shall be punished departmentally.” 5.1. It is also contended that since petitioner remained on unauthorized leave w.e.f. 30.06.2018, on the face of various notices issued under Annexures- C/2, D/2 and E/2, petitioner never joined till she joined on 09.10.2018. It is accordingly contended that since petitioner over stayed her leave beyond 29.06.2018, after her joining on 09.10.2018, the said period was treated as earned leave and leave without pay vide order under Annexure-4, so confirmed vide order under Annexure-7 and it requires no interference. 6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and considering the submissions made, this Court finds that petitioner while in service, she applied for C.L. for the period from 26.06.2018 to 29.06.2018. However, on 30.06.2018 an application was made before Opp. Party No.2 with copy to Opp. Party No.3 by the petitioner under Annexure-2, seeking extension of her C.L. from 30.06.2018. 6.1. It is also found that petitioner remained on medical emergency for the period 30.06.2018 to 08.10.2018 and along with her joining on 09.10.2018, p. 5 p. 5 she submitted the medical report so issued under Annexure-3. However, on the face of such document being produced by the petitioner, the period from 26.06.2018 to 29.06.2018 was treated as E.L. and the period from 30.06.2018 to 08.10.2018 as leave without pay vide the impugned order dated 04.12.2018 under Annexure-4. Even though petitioner made a prayer to treat the period as E.L. vide Annexure-5, but the same was also rejected vide order dated 02.02.2021 under Annexure-7. 6.2. This Court taking into account the materials available on record and more particularly the documents available under Annexure-2 and 3, is of the view that the period from 26.06.2018 to 08.10.2018, should have been treated as leave due and admissible, instead of treating the period 26.06.2018 to 29.06.2018 as E.L. and 30.06.2018 to 08.10.2018 as leave without pay. 6.3. This Court accordingly in view of the aforesaid analysis, while quashing the order under Annexure-4 and 7, directs Opp. Party No.2 to treat the entire period from 26.06.2018 to 08.10.2018 as leave due and admissible and pass a fresh order in that regard. 6.4. This Court directs Opp. Party No.2 to do the needful as directed within a period of 2 (two) months from the date of receipt of this order. Consequential p. 6 p. 6 follow up action be taken after passing of such order by treating the entire leave period as leave due and admissible. 7. The Writ Petition stands disposed of accordingly. (Biraja Prasanna Satapathy) Judge Basudev