WP(C)/13173/2025 of DUSHMANTA KUMAR MOHANTY Vs STATE OF ODISHA on 1 September 2026

ORDER

01.09.2026 Order No.02

1. This matter is taken up through hybrid mode.

2. Heard Mr. M.K. Khuntia, learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner and Mr. S.P. Das, learned Addl. Standing Counsel appearing for the Opp. Parties.

3. The present writ petition has been filed inter alia with the following prayer:- “It is therefore humbly prayed that this Hon'ble Court may graciously be pleased to Admit the writ petition, Call for the records and after hearing the parties pass the following reliefs:

i. To quash the order dtd.9.6.2017 under Annexure-12.

ii. To quash the order dtd.8.4.2025 under Annexure-14.

iii. To direct the Opposite Parties to treat 257 days as leave due and admissible. Iv. To direct the Opposite Parties to grant all financial and consequential benefits flowing from quashing of order dtd.9.6.2017 and 8.4.2025 under Annexure- 12&14 respectively. And pass such other order/orders as may be deemed fit and proper for the interest of justice. And for this act of kindness, the petitioner as in duty bound shall ever pray.”

4. It is contended that in the proceeding initiated against the Petitioner vide charge memo dtd.17.04.2012, Petitioner duly participated in the proceeding by filing his reply. Thereafter, while disposing the proceeding vide the impugned order dtd.09.06.2017 under Annexure-12, Opp. Party No. 4 while imposing the punishment of one black mark also treated the period from 10.12.2010 to 23.08.2011 as ‘no pay’.

4.1. It is contended that challenging such order Petitioner though moved the appellate authority under Annexure-13, but the said authority-Opp. Party No. 3 rejected the appeal vide order dtd.08.04.2025 under Annexure-14.

4.2. Learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner contended that since while imposing the punishment of one black mark, the period from 10.12.2010 to 23.08.2011 was treated as ‘no pay’, in view of the decision rendered by this Court on 27.08.2024 in W.P.C.(OAC) No. 3260 of 2017, such period cannot be treated as ‘no pay’ as no such punishment is prescribed under PMR 824. This Court in Para 4.2 & 6.1 of the order has held as follows:- “4.2. Learned counsel for the Petitioner relying on an order passed by this Court on 11.04.2019 in W.P.(C) No.19773 of 2010 contended that while imposing the punishment of forfeiture of increment carrying value of one black mark period of absconding from duty could not have been treated as no pay. This Court in the said case held that while imposing the punishment of withholding of increment for one year equivalent to the value of two black mark, period of unauthorized absent cannot be treated as no pay. Relevant portion of the order dtd.11.04.2019 is quoted hereunder:- "He further contended that it is a double jeopardy when the increment of the petitioner has been withheld for one year equivalent to the value of "2 Black Marks", at the same time his unauthorized absence for the period from 22.04.2001 to 15.05.2001 was directed to be treated as "No pay'. In our considered opinion, the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is required to be accepted. The second penalty of unauthorized absence for the period from 22.04.2001 to 15.05.2001 to be treated as 'No Pay' is required to be quashed and the same is quashed".

6.1. Placing reliance on the order passed by this Court in W.P.(C) No.19673 of 2010, this Court is of the view while imposing the punishment of forfeiture of increment equivalent to one black mark, the absconding period could not have been treated as no pay.”

4.3. Placing reliance on the aforesaid order, it is contended that Petitioner will have no grievance with regard to the imposition of one (1) black mark, if the sick period instead of being treated as ‘no pay’, will be treated as leave due and admissible. It is accordingly contended that with quashing of the impugned order under Annexure-12 & 14 so far as it relates to treating the period from 10.12.2010 to 23.08.2011 as ‘no pay’, the writ petition be disposed of by directing Opp. Party No. 4 to treat the aforesaid period as leave due and admissible.

5. Even though notice of the writ petition has been issued since 12.05.2025, but no counter affidavit has been filed as yet. However, basing on the available materials, learned Addl. Standing Counsel contended that since Petitioner remained on unauthorised absent for period from 10.12.2010 to 23.08.2011 for which the proceeding was initiated, he has been rightly imposed with the punishment of one (1) black mark and the period has been treated as ‘no pay’ by the disciplinary authority-Opp. Party No. 4 in his order dtd.09.06.2017 under Annexure-12.

5.1. It is further contended that such order has also been upheld by the appellate authority-Opp. Party No. 3 vide order dtd.08.04.2025 under Annexure-14. It is accordingly contended that since the order passed by the disciplinary authority has been confirmed by the appellate authority, no interference is called for.

6. Having heard learned counsel appearing for the Parties and considering the submissions made, it is found that in the proceeding initiated against the Petitioner under Annexure-5, Opp. Party No. 4 being the disciplinary authority while disposing the proceeding vide order dtd.09.06.2017 under Annexure-12, imposed the punishment of one (1) black mark and while imposing such punishment, the period from 10.12.2010 to 23.08.2011 was treated as ‘no pay’. Order passed by Opp. Party No. 4 has been confirmed by the appellate authority-Opp. Party No. 3 in his order dtd.04.04.2025 under Annexure-14.

6.1. Placing reliance on the order passed by this Court in W.P.C.(OAC) No. 3260 of 2017, this Court is of the view that since no such punishment to treat the period as ‘no pay’ is prescribed under PMR 824, no such punishment could have been imposed and instead the said period should have been treated as leave due and admissible.

6.2. In view of the aforesaid analysis, this Court while disposing the writ petition, without interfering with the punishment so far as imposition of one (1) black mark is concerned, but held that the period from 10.12.2010 to 23.08.2011 be treated as leave due and admissible instead of ‘no pay’.

6.3. Therefore, while interfering with that part of the order, this Court directs Opp. Party No. 4 to treat the period from 10.12.2010 to 23.08.2011 as leave due and admissible and pass an appropriate order with extension of the consequential benefits within a period of three (3) months from the date of receipt of this order.

7. The writ petition accordingly stands disposed of.

(BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY)

Judge Sneha Digitally Signed Signed by: SNEHANJALI PARIDA Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Date: 03-Sep-2026 13:12:15 Signature Not Verified