IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C) No.19052 of 2022 Khirod Kumar Jena …. Petitioner Mr. P.K. Nanda, Advocate on behalf of Mr. D. Sahoo, Advocate -versus- State of Odisha and Others …. Opposite Parties Mr. S.P. Das, ASC CORAM: JUSTICE BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY Order No. ORDER 02.02.2026 03. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual/Physical) Mode. 2. Heard Mr. P.K. Nanda, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Mr. D. Sahoo, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. S.P. Das, learned Addl. Standing Counsel for the State. 3. The present Writ Petition has been filed inter alia challenging order dated 22.10.2020, so passed by Opp. Party No.4 under Annexure-5 confirmed by the Appellate Authority-Opp. Party No.2 under Annexure-7. 4. It is contended that in the proceeding initiated on 30.06.2020 under Annexure-3 in Keonjhar District Proceeding No.10 dated 16.07.2020, petitioner was imposed with the following punishment:- “EL overstayal period w.e.f. 18.04.2020 Am to 18.06.2020 Pm = Total 62 (Sixty Two) days treated as “No Pay” and Censured in SB.” 4.1. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended that since no such punishment is prescribed under PMR-824 and while imposing the punishment of Censure, period in question could not have been treated as no pay. Even though such a stand was taken by the petitioner, but the Appellate Authority without proper appreciation, rejected the appeal vide the impugned order under Annexure-7. 4.2. Making all these submission, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that while imposing the punishment of Censure against which petitioner has got no grievance, period in question could not have been treated as no pay. 5. Mr. S.P. Das, learned Addl. Standing Counsel on the other hand while supporting the impugned order so passed under Annexure-6 and confirmed vide order under Annexures-5 and 7, made his submission relying on the stand taken in Para-5 of the counter affidavit, it is contended that since petitioner remained on unauthorized leave for 62 days, that period was treated as no pay while disposing the proceeding with imposition of the punishment of censure. 5.1. It is also contended that since petitioner overstayed the leave for the period 18.04.2020 to 20.06.2020, the said period has been rightly treated as no pay. It is also contended that punishment of Censure is a major punishment as per PMR 824. 6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and considering the submissions made, this Court finds that while disposing the proceeding, petitioner has been imposed with the punishment of censure and overstayal period has been treated as no pay. Since no such punishment to treat overstayal period as no pay is prescribed under PMR-824, this Court is of the view that period in question could not have been treated as no pay by the Disciplinary Authority while disposing the proceeding so affirmed by the Appellate Authority vide orders issued under Annexure-5 and 7. 6.1. In view of the same, this Court while quashing the orders so far as it relates to treating the over stayal period as no pay, remits the matter to Opp. Party No.4 to pass a fresh order by giving opportunity of hearing to the petitioner as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of 6 (six) weeks from the date of receipt of this order. 7. The Writ Petition stands disposed of accordingly. (Biraja Prasanna Satapathy) Judge Basudev