Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2025 Supreme(Ori) 329

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
S.K. SAHOO, SIBO SANKAR MISHRA, JJ.
Manas Ranjan Das – Appellant
Versus
Union of India and Others – Respondents
W.P. (C) No. 32987 of 2025
Decided On : 05-12-2025

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellant : Nirod Kumar Sahoo
For the Respondents: P.K. Parhi, Millan Kumar

Disciplinary authorities must adhere to procedural guidelines in handling put-off duty cases, failing which could lead to prolonged unjust suspension.

Headnote:(A) Gramin Dak Sevak (Conduct & Engagement) Rules, 2011 - Rule 10 - The petitioner challenged dismissal of his application regarding deemed duty status during suspension period - Tribunal found no basis in rules for treating off-duty period as deemed on duty - Misconduct led to disciplinary proceedings as per aforementioned rule. (Paras 3, 5, 6, 9, 10, 13)

(B) Disciplinary Authority's Duty - Authorities must follow due procedure in handling put-off duty cases, including timely reviews and final orders, to avoid prolonged suspension and reputational damage. (Paras 11, 12)

Facts of the case:
The petitioner sought relief for being deemed on-duty during suspension from 03.01.2016 to 26.02.2018, claiming rules were violated during this period. The Tribunal dismissed the petition citing lack of statutory basis for the claim.

Findings of Court:
The Tribunal’s dismissal of the original application was found proper as no provision allows treating off-duty periods as deemed on-duty beyond stipulated timeframes.

Issues: Main issues involved the interpretation of rules regarding ‘put-off duty’ and the procedural adherence required from disciplinary authorities.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that existing rules do not support the petitioner's claim, emphasizing the necessity for disciplinary authorities to follow procedures scrupulously to uphold fairness.

Result: Writ petition dismissed, no relief granted.

ORDER :

1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid arrangement (video conferencing/physical mode).

2. As per the order dated 29.11.2025, the learned counsel for the petitioner has served the copy of the writ petition on the learned counsel for the opp. party nos. 1 to 4.

3. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner Manas Ranjan Das challenging the order dated 09.10.2025 passed by the learned Central Administrative Tribunal, Cuttack Bench, Cuttack in O.A. No.260/00123 of 2022 in dismissing the original application.

4. It appears that the original application was filed by the petitioner with the following prayer:-

“The relief sought for:

In view of the facts stated above, the applicant prays for following reliefs.

I. In this respect it is most respectfully submitted that a direction may be given to the respondents, particularly to respondent No.4 to declare that the applicant be deemed on duty with effect from the 91^st day of the suspension/off duty i.e. 03.01.2016 till 26.02.2018, when the Charge sheet was issued and thereby disburse all consequential benefits, including difference of pay and allowances and other benefits treating the said period as duty.

II. This Honorable tribunal may also be pleased to pass any other further order/ orders as deemed fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.”

5. The opposite parties filed the counter affidavit wherein it is stated that there is no provision available in the Gramin Dak Sevak (Conduct & Engagement) Rules, 2011 which enables the Disciplinary Authority to treat a GDS under off duty to have been deemed on duty on expiry of ninety days from the date of placing him under-off duty.

6. It is further stated in the counter affidavit that due to commitment of a grave misconduct by the petitioner, disciplinary action under Rule-10 of Gramin Dak Sevak (Conduct & Engagement) Rules, 2011 (hereafter "2011 Rules") was instituted against the petitioner vide SPOs Dhenkanal Division Memo No- F4-2/2015-16/Disc-I dated 26.02.2018. The petitioner received the memorandum of charges on 01.03.2018 and he did not submit his representation though he was allowed sufficient time to submit his defence. Ultimately, the defence representation dated 10.09.2018 was received from the petitioner in which he neither denied nor admitted the Articles of Charge leveled against him.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioner referred to the date chart which shows that on 05.10.2015, the put-off duty order was issued, on 16.10.2025 put-off duty order was confirmed, on 26.02.2018 the charge sheet was issued, on 12.08.2020 the Inquiry Report was submitted, on 15.01.2016 & 07.12.2019, the petitioner filed representation before the authorities to revoke put-off duty and pay the duty pay. On 23.09.2020, the proposed punishment order was issued by Disciplinary Authority and on 18.12.2020 the petitioner preferred the appeal against the punishment order, on 03.01.2022 the order of Appellate Authority upholding the proposed punishment was passed and thereafter on 14.03.2022, the Original Application was filed before the learned CAT which was disposed of on 09.10.2025, out of which the impugned order arises.

8. When we made a query to the learned counsel for the petitioner as to what happened to the order passed by the disciplinary authority imposing punishment on the petitioner which was confirmed by the appellate authority, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that in a separate original application i.e. those orders were challenged and it was dismissed by the Central Administrative Tribunal so also confirmed by this Court and the petitioner has not yet gone to the Hon'ble Supreme Court.

9. Learned counsel for the petitioner has brought to the notice of this Court some provisions under 2011 Rules particularly Rule 12 of the said Rules which deals with "Put-off duty" and it states that the Engaging Authority or any authority to which the Engaging Authority is subordinate or any other authority empowered in that b