IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C) No.31352 of 2023 Balaram Kalet …. Petitioner Mr. M.K. Khuntia, Advocate -versus- State of Odisha and Others …. Opposite Parties Mr. P.K. Panda, ASC CORAM: JUSTICE BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY Order No. ORDER 06.05.2026 02. 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 challenging order of punishment passed by the Disciplinary Authority-O.P. No.4 on 30.11.2020 under Annexure-3, confirmed by the Appellate Authority-O.P. No.3 vide order dated 07.07.2023 under Annexure-5. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner while assailing the impugned order of punishment, contended that the proceeding in question was initiated vide Memorandum dated 17.06.2020 vide Proceeding No.7 of 2020 under Annexure-1, while the petitioner was continuing as a Cook, in the establishment of Opp. Party No.4. 4.1. It is contended that in the said proceeding, petitioner submitted his reply and after issuance of the 1st and 2nd show-cause notice and with due consideration of the reply made by the petitioner to the show-causes, petitioner was imposed with the following punishment by the Disciplinary Authority-O.P. No.4 vide order dated 30.11.2020:- “One Black Mark and the period of unauthorized overstayal of leave w.e.f. 02.09.2019 A.M. to 16.07.2020 P.M. total 319 days to be treated as No Pay.” 4.2. It is contended that such an order passed by the Disciplinary Authority-O.P. No.4 though was assailed with filing of an appeal before Opp. Party No.3, but the same was also rejected vide order dated 07.07.2023 under Annexure-5. 4.3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that since petitioner by the time the proceeding was initiated was working as a Cook, no such punishment of One Black Mark could have been imposed in view of the provisions contained under PMR-824 read with PMR-834. PMR-824 and PMR-834 reads as follows:- “824. Description of departmental punishments:- The following punishments may be inflicted departmentally on a police officer below the rank of Deputy Superintendent- (a) Dismissal (b) Removal (b-1) Compulsory retirement and (c) Reduction in rank. (d) Reduction in time-scale. (e) Withholding of the next increment for a specific offence with or without corresponding postponement of subsequent increments. (f) Black mark or marks. (g) Removal from any office of distinction or specific emolument, (h) Censure, (i) Warning (j) Confinements to quarters for a period not exceeding 15 days, (k) Punishment drill and (l) Extra guard or other duty Provided that the punishments mentioned in Clauses (i) to (m) shall not be imposed on any officer of or above the rank of Sub-Inspector nor the punishment mentioned in (1) on any Assistant sub-inspector, Constable of Ordinary Reserve and Havildar of Armed Reserve. Punishments mentioned in Clauses (a) to (h) are classed as major and the rest are minor. All major punishments and censure shall be entered in the service book other minor punishments may be so entered if the officer awarding the punishment so directs. xxxx xxxxx xxxxx xxxx 834. (a) Imposition of black marks:- Black marks may be awarded alone or in addition to other punishments enumerated in Rule 824 except dismissal or removal, to all officers of and below the rank of Inspector. No more than one black mark shall be awarded or any one offence except when moral turpitude can reasonably be inferred. (b) Three black marks shall ordinarily entail reduction or forfeiture or withholding of an increment, the period of which shall be specified in the order and, after the period is over the officer will be restored to his former position. Such reduction or forfeiture or withholding of increment shall not carry any black mark value. (c) It shall be left to the discretion of the officer awarding the third black mark to waive the penalty noted in Clause (b). In exercising this option, he shall consider- (i) the officers for which the previous black marks were awarded; (ii) the length of time that has elapsed since they were awarded; (iii) any good service the defaulter may have to his credit.” 4.4. It is contended that such a punishment of One Black Mark can only be imposed on a Police Officer. As per the definition given under PMR-1-E, Cook is not coming within the definition of a Police Officer. PMR-1- E reads as follows:- “1-E. Remarks of Police Officer:- A table showing all ranks of Police Officers in order of precedence is as follows: Senior Officers 1. Inspector-General 2. Additional Inspector-General 3. Deputy Inspector-General 4. Assistant Inspector-General Superintendent Commandant 5. Additional Superintendent Deputy Commandant 6. Assistant Superintendent 7. Deputy Superintendent Assistant Commandant Other Officers 8. Inspector Reserve Inspector Subedar 9. Sergeant Sub-Inspector Jemadar 10. Assistant Sub-Inspector Havildar-Major 11. Havildar Head Constable 12. Constables (including Naiks, Lance Naiks).” 4.5. It is accordingly contended that since petitioner is not coming within the definition of a Police Officer in view of the provisions contained under PMR-1(E), no such punishment of One Black Mark could have been imposed, so imposed while disposing the proceeding vide the impugned order under Annexure-3, confirmed vide order under Annexure-5. 4.6. It is also contended that petitioner has no grievance so far as other punishment so imposed in treating the period of unauthorised overstayal as no pay. 5. Learned Addl. Standing Counsel on the other hand while supporting the impugned order, contended that since in the proceeding in question there is no allegation that any statutory provision was not followed nor principle of natural justice was violated and order of punishment so passed by the Disciplinary has been confirmed by the Appellate Authority, no interference is called for with regard to the punishment imposed on the petitioner. 5.1. It is accordingly contended that the present writ petition with the challenge as made, is not entertainable. 6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and considering the submission made, it is found that the proceeding in question in Proceeding No.7 of 2020 was initiated against the petitioner with service of Memorandum under Annexure-1. It is not disputed that by the time such a proceeding was initiated, petitioner was working as a Cook in the establishment of Opp. Party No.3. 6.1. However, while disposing the proceeding, the Disciplinary Authority-O.P. No.4 imposed the punishment of One Black Mark and the over stayal period was treated as no pay. This Court after going through the provisions contained under PMR-1(E) read with PMR-824 and PMR-834, is of the view that since post of Cook is not coming within the definition of Police Officer, no such punishment of One Black Mark, could have been imposed on the petitioner. 6.2. Since petitioner is not a Police Officer coming within the definition of PMR-1(E) and while disposing the proceeding, punishment of One Black Mark has been imposed, it is the view of this Court that no such punishment could have been imposed on the petitioner. 6.3. Therefore, this Court is inclined to quash the punishment so far as it relates to imposition of One Black Mark is concerned against the petitioner vide the impugned order dated 30.11.2020 under Annexure-3 so confirmed vide order dated 07.07.2023 under Annexure-5 and quash the same accordingly. 7. The Writ Petition stands disposed of accordingly. (Biraja Prasanna Satapathy) Judge Basudev