p. 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.A. No.1654 of 2025 In the matter of an appeal under Article-4 of the Orissa High Court Order, 1948 read with Clause-10 of the Letters Patent of the Patna High Court from the order dated 17.09.2025 passed in W.P.(C) No.23367 of 2023 by the learned Single Judge of this Court. …. Member Secretary, State Pollution Control Board, Odisha, BBSR …. Appellant -Versus- Laxmidhar Pal and another …. Respondents Advocates appeared in this case: For Appellant : M/s. Bibhudendra Dash, P.K. Mohanty & N.C. Jena, Advocates For Respondents : M/s. Shashi Bhusan Jena, S. Behera, S.P. Jena & A. Swain, Advocates on caveat CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DIXIT KRISHNA SHRIPAD HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE CHITTARANJAN DASH J U D G M E N T ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Date of hearing & Judgment: 03.02.2026 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- PER DIXIT KRISHNA SHRIPAD, J. This Intra-Court Appeal is directed against a learned Single Judge’s order dated 17.09.2025, whereby Respondent-employee’s W.P.(C) No.23367 of 2023 having been favoured, the relief has been accorded in the following words: p. 2 “7. Having heard learned counsel appearing for the Parties, considering the submissions made and placing reliance on the provisions contained under Regulation-21 of the aforesaid regulation, it is the view of this Court that, release of the benefit for the period an employee remains under suspension can be withheld on three different eventualities. Since admittedly Petitioner has already been released from detention and thereafter he was allowed to join, as per the considered view of this Court Regulation-21 is not a bar to regularize the period of suspension and extend the benefit as due and admissible. 7.1. Therefore, this Court while disposing the Writ Petition directs Opposite Party No.2 to regularize the period of suspension from 01.07.2011 to 24.06.2012 and extend the benefit as due and admissible in favour of the Petitioner. This Court directs Opposite Party No.2 to take a decision as directed within a period of six (6) weeks from the date of receipt of this order.” 2. Learned counsel appearing for the Appellant submits that admittedly the Vigilance case is pending against the Respondent- employee and therefore, learned Single Judge is not right in according the relief in his favour. Learned counsel appearing for the Respondent- employee repeatedly draws our attention to the Rule position and says that once an employee who was detained in connection with a criminal case is released, the period of detention needs to be regularized, notwithstanding payment of subsistence allowance. He heavily banks upon Regulation 21 of Recruitment & Conditions of Service of Employees of the State Pollution Control Board, Odisha, Regulation p. 3 2011. He adds that the disciplinary inquiry that was proposed against his client has been dropped, he having already retired from service on superannuation. 3. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the Appeal papers, we are inclined to grant a limited indulgence in the matter as under and for the following reasons: i) Ordinarily, in civilized jurisdictions, a public employee, on being detained in relation to a criminal case by the jurisdictional authorities, suffers suspension from service if that detention period is beyond a particular period subject to all just exceptions. It is admitted in this case that the Respondent-employee is implicated in a vigilance case and that he was arrested and detained during the period between 01.07.2011 and 24.06.2012. During the suspension period, he has been paid the subsistence allowance, as admissible under the extant regulations, is not disputed. ii) The vehement submission of learned counsel for the Respondent- employee that under Regulation 21 of 2011 Regulation, once an employee is enlarged from confinement, he is entitled to have the suspension period regularized, needs to be examined. The said Regulation reads as under: p. 4 “(21) An employee against whom proceedings have been initiated either for his/her arrest for debt or on a criminal charge or who is detained under any Law providing for preventing detention shall be considered as under suspension for the period during which he/she is detained on custody or is undergoing imprisonment. He/ she will not be allowed to draw any pay and allowances (other than subsistence allowance) for such period until the termination of the proceedings taken against him or until he/she is released from detention and allowed to rejoin on his/her duty as the case may be.” A perusal of the Regulation does not support the contention of the kind, inasmuch as the criminal case, i.e., the vigilance case is pending before the jurisdictional Court, although the proposed disciplinary inquiry has been dropped on superannuation. While construing Regulation of the kind, one cannot keep the common sense in cold storage. A service Regulation cannot be read as an act of Parliament. The text & context of the Regulations/Rules have to be kept in view consistent with established norms of service jurisprudence. iii) Countenancing contention of learned counsel for the Respondent- employee would be like placing premium on illegality and reasons for this are not far to seek: Firstly, the Vigilance case is pending against him and he has to face the same; during the pendency, the cloud continues on his head. If the Vigilance case was decided in his favour, he emerging victorious would have figured different consideration. However, that is p. 5 not the case. Secondly, the employee, who suffers a cloud on account of pendency of a criminal case or a disciplinary proceeding cannot claim that during confinement period, he should be paid from the Public Exchequer. He can make a claim for regularization of suspension period and grant of consequential benefits, only if he comes out from the proceeding scathe free and not otherwise. In this connection, the rulings in the law reports galore. Learned Single Judge’s order runs counter to this well established cannon of service jurisprudence and thus, it has an infirmity warranting interference of this Court. 4. The above being said, learned counsel for the Respondent- employee is more than justified and learned counsel appearing for the Appellant is more than fair in telling us that depending upon the outcome of the Vigilance case, the Respondent-employee can seek regularization of the suspension period. That is how, the standard text book writers on service law like Justice Rama Jois in his ‘Services Under the State’ and Mr. Samaraditya Pal in his “Law Relating to Public Service’ would say. In the above circumstances, this Appeal succeeds; the impugned order of the learned Single Judge is set at naught; Respondent’s W.P.(C) No.23367 of 2023 is dismissed. However, liberty is reserved to the Respondent-employee to seek p. 6 regularization of suspension period, if he comes out victorious in the Vigilance case. In that connection, all contentions are kept open. No costs. Web copy of judgment to be acted upon by all concerned. (Dixit Krishna Shripad) Judge (Chittaranjan Dash) Judge Orissa High Court, Cuttack The 3rd day of February, 2026/Prasant