IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C) No.21154 of 2022 Trinath Nayak …. Petitioner Mr. A Mishra, Advocate -versus- Special Secretary to Govt., Home Department, BBSR and Others …. Opposite Parties Mr. P.K. Panda, ASC CORAM: JUSTICE BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY Order No. ORDER 10.03.2026 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:- <Therefore it is humbly prayed by the petitioner by seeking the following reliefs:- (i) To issue writ of" MANDAMUS" and quash the proceeding S.O.G No-06/20 against the petitioner as it is visited due to non adoption of proper procedure. (ii) Issue "RULE NESS" calling upon the O.Ps to file the counter why proper procedure has not been adopted by the Opp. Parties while disposing of the proceedings. (iii) To quash Annexure-1 & 7. (iv) Any other relief may be granted by this Hon'ble court which is deem fit and proper in the eye of law;= 4. It is contended that in the proceeding initiated against the petitioner in Proceeding No.06/SOG dated 17.02.2020, the Disciplinary Authority while disposing the proceeding vide order dated 20.02.2021 under Annexure-4 imposed the punishment of one black mark and suspension period w.e.f. 20.12.2019 to 30.01.2020 was treated as such. 4.1. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that challenging such order, petitioner moved the Appellate Authority-Opp. Party No.3 and thereafter the Revisional Authority-Opp. Party No.2. But the Appellate Authority vide order dated 18.05.2021 under Annexure-5, dismissed the appeal without proper appreciation of the grounds taken by the petitioner. Similarly, Revisional Authority also without proper appreciation, dismissed the revision vide order dated 04.06.2022 under Annexure-7. 4.2. While assailing the impugned order of punishment so passed by the Disciplinary Authority- Opp. Party No.4, confirmed by the Appellate Authority and Revisional Authority vide order under Annexure-5 and 7, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that since no such punishment to treat the period of suspension as such is prescribed under PMR-824, while imposing the punishment of one black mark, the period of suspension could not have been treated as such. 4.3. 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 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.= 4.4. Making all these submissions, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that since no such punishment to treat the period of suspension as such is prescribed under PMR-824, the said order is required to be interfered with by this Court. 5. Mr. P.K. Panda, learned Addl. Standing Counsel on the other hand while supporting the impugned order passed under Annexure-4 confirmed vide order under Annexures-5 and 7, contended that since the proceeding has been disposed of in accordance with law and there is no allegation that petitioner has not been given due opportunity of hearing, no illegality or irregularity can be found with the impugned order. 5.1. It is also contended that taking into account the gravity of the charges so framed against the petitioner in the proceeding, petitioner has been rightly imposed with the punishment and the same is not liable for interference. 6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and considering the submissions made, this Court finds that in the proceeding initiated in Proceeding No.06/SOG dated 17.02.2020, Opp. Party No.4 being the Disciplinary Authority while disposing the proceeding vide order dated 20.02.2021 under Annexure-4, imposed the punishment of one black mark and while imposing such punishment, period of suspension was treated as such. Order passed by the Disciplinary Authority-Opp. Party No.4, has been confirmed by the Appellate Authority vide order under Annexure-5 and the Revisional Authority vide order under Annexure-7. 6.1. Placing reliance on the order passed by this Court in W.P.C(OAC) No.761 of 2018 and the fact that no such punishment is prescribed to treat the period of suspension as such under PMR-824, this Court while interfering with that part of the order, directs Opp. Party No.4 to treat the period of suspension from 20.12.2019 to 30.01.2020 as leave due and admissible and pass a fresh order within a period of 6(six) weeks from the date of receipt of this order. Consequential follow up action be taken to release the differential entitlement if any, in favour of the petitioner within the aforesaid time period also. 7. The Writ Petition stands disposed of accordingly. (Biraja Prasanna Satapathy) Judge Basudev