WP(C)/22045/2026 of GANESH MAJHI Vs STATE OF ODISHA on 2 September 2026

ORDER

02.09.2026

05.

1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual/Physical) Mode.

2. Heard Mr. S.K. Purohit, learned counsel for the Petitioner and Mr. A. Tripathy, learned Addl. Govt. Advocate appearing for the Opp. Parties.

3. The Petitioner has filed the present writ petition inter alia with the following prayer:- “It is therefore prayed that your Lordships may be graciously pleased to issue notice to the Opp.parties asking them to show cause as to why the impugned order Annexure-6 shall not be quashed and on hearing the Opp.parties, if they fail to show no /insufficient cause, then issue a writ of mandamus/certiorari or any other appropriate writ/order/direction quashing Annexure-6, the impugned order dt.29.3.2025 passed by the O.P. No.2

// 2 //

directing the Opp.parties to treat the entire suspension period of 6 years 6 months and 17 days from 15.5.2017 to02.09.2023 as period spent on duty for all purposes directing the Opp.parties to restore and release all 6 statutory annual grade increments withheld due to the suspension along with the differential back arrears of pay and allowances by treating the entire suspension period towards continuous qualifying service for computation of final pension and gratuity allowing him 300 days of leave salary encashment on superannuation. And/or pass any such other/further order(s)/direction(s) as deemed fit and proper by your Lordships in the aforesaid facts and circumstances; And allow this writ petition with cost; And for such kind act of Your Lordship, the petitioner, as duty bound, shall ever pray.”

4. It is contended that in the proceeding initiated against the Petitioner on 22.04.2017 under Annexure-2-Series final order of punishment was passed on 20.07.2024 vide the impugned order under Annexure-6. It is contended that while disposing the proceeding vide order under Annexure-6, Opp. Party No. 1 since imposed the punishment of stoppage of one (1) increment without cumulative effect and censure for future, which is in the nature of a minor penalty as provided 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. 1 should not have treated the period of suspension as such. It is contended that once the minor penalty is imposed on a delinquent employee,

// 3 //

the period of suspension should be treated as duty instead of treating the same as such which has been passed by the Opp. Party No. 1 in the impugned order.

4.1. 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 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

// 4 //

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.”

4.2. Placing reliance on the decision as cited (supra), Mr. Purohit, learned counsel for the Petitioner vehemently contended that since while disposing the proceeding, minor penalty was imposed with stoppage of one increment without cumulative effect and censure for future, the period of suspension should have been treated as duty instead of treating the same as such. Not only that following the decision in the case of Bani Bhusan Das, this Court in the case of Dr. Smita Mohanty (W.P.(C) (OA) No.2585 of 2016 had held as follows in Para 6:-

// 5 //

“6. 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 the Petitioner was imposed with a minor punishment i.e. stoppage of two increments without cumulative effect. 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 treat the period of suspension as such. While quashing the same, this Court directs the Opp. Party No. 1 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 shall be undertaken and completed by the O.P. No 1 within a period of two

(2) months from the date of receipt of this order.”

5. Mr. A. Tripathy, learned AGA does not dispute the ratio decided in the case of Bani Bhusan Dash as well as the decision in the case of Dr. Smita Mohanty so cited supra.

6. 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 under Annexure-6 Petitioner was imposed with a minor punishment i.e. stoppage of one increment without cumulative effect and censure for future. 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 order dated 20.07.2024 under Annexure- 6 so far as it relates to treating the period of suspension as such.

// 6 //

While quashing the same, this Court directs Opp. Party No. 1 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 shall be undertaken and completed by the O.P. No 1 within a period of two (2) months from the date of receipt of this order.

7. The writ petition is disposed of accordingly.

(Biraja Prasanna Satapathy)

Judge

Jyoti Digitally Signed Signed by: JYOTIPRAVA BHOL Reason: Authentication Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA Date: 08-Sep-2026 11:19:48 Signature Not Verified