Page 1 of 5. IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK WP(C) No. 11038 of 2022 Simadri Panigrahy ..... Petitioner Mr. G.R. Sethi, Advocate -versus- State of Odisha & Ors. ..... Opposite Parties Mr. C.K. Pradhan, AGA CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY ORDER 28.01.2026 Order No. 04 1. This matter is taken up through hybrid mode. 2. Rejoinder affidavit filed in Court be kept in record. 3. Heard Ms. B.K. Pattanaik, learned counsel for the Petitioner and Mr. S. Das, learned Addl. Standing Counsel appearing for the Opp. Parties. 4. The Petitioner has filed the present writ petition inter alia challenging the order of punishment so passed by the Opp. Party No. 2 vide order dtd.21.08.2015 under Annexure-7 and confirmation of the same by Opp. Party No. 1, vide order dtd.25.03.2022 under Annexure- 10. 5. It is contended that in the proceeding initiated against the Petitioner on 28.10.2011, final order of punishment was passed by Opp. Party No. 2 vide the impugned order under Annexure-7. It is contended that since while disposing the proceeding Opp. Party No. 2, passed the order of punishment with a direction to stop one increment without cumulative effect, which is in the nature of a minor penalty as provided Page 2 of 5. under Rule 13 of the OCS (CCA) Rules, 1962, in view of the decision of this Court rendered in the case of Bani Bhusan Dash Vs. State of Odisha & Ors.(W.P.(C) No. 7635 of 2019) vide Judgment dtd.28.10.2021, Opp. Party No. 2 should not have treated the period of suspension as such. It is contended that once minor penalty is imposed on a delinquent employee, period of suspension should be treated as duty instead of treating the same as such, which has been passed by the Opp. Party No. 2 vide order under Annexure-7. 5.1. Ms. B.K. Pattanaik, learned counsel for the Petitioner relied on another decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court reported in the case of Union of India & Anr. Vs. S.C. Parashar ((2006) 3 SCC 167). This Court in Para 10 of the reported case of Bani Bhusan Dash has held as follows:- “10. Coming to the 3rd punishment, as imposed in the impugned order dated 15.09.2018 under Annexure-8, i.e. treating the period of suspension as leave due and admissible, no doubt the authorities are empowered to place an employee under suspension in contemplation or pending drawal of a proceeding exercising their power under Rule-12 of the OCS (CCA) Rules, 1962. Accordingly, they have to give a conclusion the manner to treat the period of suspension at the time of passing final order in the departmental proceeding. The authorities are to keep the suspension as such or to revoke the said suspension order by revising the period of suspension as duty, as because honouring nonengagement certificate for the relevant period, the authorities have sanctioned subsistence allowance to the delinquent during the period of suspension. In the instant case, the authority, after taking a decision not to treat the period of suspension as such, is not empowered to take a decision to treat the period of suspension as leave due and admissible, when the petitioner did not ask Page 3 of 5. for any leave during the said period of suspension. Regularization of a particular period treating as leave period of different kinds of leave, as provided under Orissa Leave Rules, can be considered only when the petitioner/employee concerned seeks leave from the competent authority for certain period under certain circumstances. The authority cannot initiate a proposal from its side in assumption of leave application from the delinquent or employee concerned to treat the period as leave due and admissible affecting the delinquent by way of consuming accrued leave in favour of the employee concerned without any fault on his part. As the authority has come to a conclusion to punish the petitioner only with a minor penalty, the decision of the competent authority to place the petitioner under suspension on the allegation of grave misconduct does not appear to be satisfactory, rather it seems that the order of suspension was issued without application of mind or in a routine or mechanical manner. As such, no review of suspension was held, as per the guidelines. Under such circumstances, after concluding the departmental proceeding by imposing minor penalty of stoppage of one increment without cumulative effect, the authority should not have treated the period of suspension in any manner other than the duty affecting the service condition of the petitioner.” Similarly, Hon’ble Apex Court in Para 12 of the reported Judgment in the case of S.C. Parashar (supra) has held as follows:- “12. The penalty imposed upon the respondent is an amalgam of minor penalty and major penalty. The respondent has been inflicted with three the tune penalties: (1) reduction to the minimum of the timescale of pay for a period of three years with cumulative effect; (2) loss of seniority; and (3) recovery of 25% of the loss incurred by the Government to of Rs Page 4 of 5. 74,341.89p. i.e. Rs 18,585.47p. on account of damage to the Gypsy in 18 (eighteen) equal monthly installments. Whereas reduction of timescale of pay with cumulative effect is a major penalty within the meaning of clause (v) of Rule 11 of the CCS Rules, loss of seniority and recovery of amount would come within the purview of minor penalty, as envisaged by clauses (iii) and (i)(a) thereof. The disciplinary authority, therefore, in our opinion acted illegally and without jurisdiction in imposing both minor and major penalties by the same order. Such a course of action could not have been taken in law.” 5.2. Placing reliance on the decisions as cited (supra), learned counsel for the Petitioner vehemently contended that since while disposing the proceeding, minor penalty was imposed with stoppage of one (1) increment without cumulative effect, the period of suspension should have been treated as duty instead of treating the same as such. Appeal filed against the order of punishment was also rejected vide order dtd.25.03.2022 under Annexure-10. 6. Mr. S. Das, learned ASC does not dispute the ratio decided in the case of Bani Bhusan Dash as well as the view expressed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of S.C. Parashar as cited supra. 7. Having heard learned counsel appearing for the Parties and taking into account the materials available on record, it is found that while disposing the proceeding vide order dt.21.08.2015 under Annexure-7, Petitioner was imposed with a minor punishment i.e. stoppage of one increment without cumulative effect. Appeal filed against such order of punishment was rejected vide order dt.25.03.2022 under Annexure- 10. Page 5 of 5. 7.1. On the face of such punishment imposed and in view of the decisions as cited supra, the period of suspension should not have been treated as such, instead of treating the same as duty. Therefore, this Court is inclined to quash the order so far as it relates to treating the period of suspension as such. While quashing the same, this Court directs Opp. Party No. 2 to treat the period of suspension as duty and extend the financial benefit as due and admissible in favour of the Petitioner. Such an exercise be undertaken and completed by the O.P. No. 2 within a period of two (2) months from the date of receipt of this order. 8. The writ petition is disposed of accordingly. (BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY) Judge Sneha