The main legal point established in the judgment is that an employee, who has accepted a punishment without challenge, is not entitled to incremental benefits during a period of suspension treated as a penalty, as mandated by the provisions of Rule-77 and Rule-79 of the Odisha Service Code.

JUDGMENT :

B.R. SARANGI, J.

1. By means of this Writ Petition, filed at the instance of the State and its functionaries, prayer has been made to quash the Order dated 19.02.2015 passed in O.A. No. 1415 of 2011, at Annexure-4, whereby the Odisha Administrative Tribunal, Bhubaneswar, has directed the State-Petitioners to sanction normal annual increments of Opposite Party No. 1 during the period of his suspension and accordingly revise his pay under Odisha Revised Scale of Pay Rules, 2008 (for short “ORSP Rules 2008”) and pay all his differential arrears within a period of four months from the date of receipt of a copy of the Order.

2. The factual matrix of the case, in brief, is that Opposite Party No. 1, while working as Junior Clerk in the Sub-Treasury, Bisoi, in the District of Mayurbhanj, a Vigilance Case was initiated against him for taking illegal gratification as he was caught red handed. On the basis of communication made by the Vigilance Department, he was placed under suspension. As a consequence thereof, an Enquiry Officer was appointed to cause inquiry into the charges levelled against him on the allegation of misconduct and harassment to the pensioners for extracting illegal gratification. The Treasury Officer, District Treasury, Mayurbhanj, Baripada, was appointed as Enquiry Officer, vide Directorate of Treasuries and Inspection, Odisha, Bhubaneswar, Order No. 9530 dated 23.06.2003, as required under Rule-15(4) of OCS (C.C.A.) Rules, 1962. After conducting inquiry, the Enquiry Officer submitted his Report before the Disciplinary Authority. On receipt of the Enquiry Report, Opposite Party No. 1 was asked to furnish his reply to show cause, vide Directorate Letter No. 11221 dated 07.07.2011 and Letter No. 14924 dated 30.08.2011, as required under Rule-15(10)1(a) and Rule-15(10)1(b) of OCS (CCA) Rules, 1962. As the reply submitted by Opposite Party No. 1 was not convincing and satisfactory, ultimately he was found guilty of the charges. As a consequence thereof, the proceeding was finalized on awarding punishment, as required under Rule-13 of OCS (CCA) Rules, 1962, which reads as follows:

“1. One increment is withheld without cumulative effect. In furtherance the period of suspension is treated as such and not to count towards qualifying service for calculation of pension as per provision of Rule-91 of O.S.C.”

2.1. Aggrieved thereby, Opposite Party No. 1 approached the Odisha Administrative Tribunal, Bhubaneswar, by filing O.A. No. 1415 of 2011 seeking following reliefs:

“(i) The Hon’ble Tribunal may be pleased to direct the Petitioner to sanction increments which were due on 1.5.2003, 1.5.2004 and 1.5.2005 and subsequent increments which he entitled as rules.

(ii) Consequent upon sanction of increments, the Hon’ble Tribunal may be pleased to direct the Petitioner to re-fix the pay of the Opposite Party No. 1 under O.R.S.P. Rules, 2008 accordingly and to disburse the arrears of pay accrued upon sanction of increments and re-fixation of pay within a time to be stipulated.

(iii) Allow the original petition with cost.

(iv) Grant any other reliefs the Hon’ble Tribunal deems fit and proper in the end of justice.”

2.2 The Tribunal issued notice to the present Petitioners, who were Respondents in Original Application filed by Opposite Party No. 1, pursuant to which they filed Counter Affidavit on 10.04.2012 wherein a specific stand was taken that the annual increments of Opposite Party No. 1 falling due on 01.05.2003, 01.05.2004 and 01.05.2005 were not sanctioned, as he was under suspension for the period from 10.06.2002 to 07.06.2005. However, after joining in the post on 08.06.2005, following his reinstatement, the annual increment was sanctioned in his favour on 01.06.2006 in terms of Rule-79 of Orissa Service Code. Since he had not done any duty during his suspension period, the same was not counted for increment. As such, he is not entitled to get increment during that period.

2.3 The Tribunal, vide impugned order dated 19.02.201