Minor punishments imposed cannot justify treating a suspension period as punitive, but must instead recognize the period as duty to ensure rightful benefits.

JUDGMENT :

Biraja Prasanna Satapathy, J.

1. Heard Mr. B. Routray, learned Senior Counsel along with Mr. J. Biswal, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. P.K. Panda, learned Addl. Standing Counsel for the State.

2. The present Writ Petition has been filed inter alia with the following prayer: -

“It is therefore, most humbly prayed that this Hon'ble Court be graciously pleased to

i) Admit the writ application.

ii) Call for the record.

iii) Issue Rule Nisi calling upon 0pp. Parties more particularly 0pp. Party No.1 and 2 to show cause as to why the order No.11911 dtd. 11.12.2017 under Annexure-8, Order No.5931 dtd. 23.10.2019 under Annexure-10 and Order No. 6285 dtd. 01.09.2023 under Annexure-12 shall not be quashed.

iv) If the 0pp. Parties more particularly 0pp. Party No.2 and 3 fails to show cause or show insufficient cause issue a writ in the nature of certiorari or any other appropriate writ/writs, order/orders, direction/directions by quashing the order No.11911 dtd. 11.12.2017 under Annexure-8, Order No.5931 dtd. 23.10.2019 under Annexure10 and Order No. 6285 dtd. 01.09.2023 under Annexure-12.

v) Issue a writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ/writs, order/orders, direction/directions directing the opposite party No. 2 to treat the period of suspension from 03.03.2011 to 25.12.2011 as duty and consequentially allow all the service benefits and emoluments for the said period.

vi) And/or pass such other order/orders, direction/directions as the Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper for the ends of justice.”

3. It is contended that in the proceeding initiated against the petitioner vide Memorandum dated 28.04.2012 under Annexure-2, after completion of the enquiry under Annexure-4, petitioner was issued with the 2nd show-cause on 17.08.2017 under Annexure-6 by proposing the following punishment:-

“1. One increment to be stopped without cumulative effect.

2. The period of suspension with effect from 03.03.2011 to 25.12.2011 to be treated as such.”

3.1. It is however contended that after consideration of the reply made by the petitioner to the 2^nd show- cause under Annexure-7 and while disposing the proceeding vide order dated 11.12.2017 under Annexure-8, the Disciplinary Authority-Opp. Party No.2 imposed the following punishment on the petitioner:-

“1. D.O. is warned not to commit such mistake in future.

2. The period of suspension with effect from 03.03.2011 to 25.12.2011 to be treated as such.”

3.2. It is contended that while disposing the proceeding, Opp. Party No.2 since imposed the punishment of warning which is a minor punishment as prescribed under Rule-13 of OCS(CCA) Rules, 1962 (in short Rules) in view of the decision in the case of Bani Bhusan Dash Vrs. State of Odisha and Others (W.P.(C) No.7635 of 2019 decided on 28.10.2021), the period of suspension could not have been treated as such. This Court in Para 10 of the decision in the 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 t