IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK WP(C) No.22747 of 2025 Satyaban Swain ..... Petitioner Mr. L. Pradhan, Advocate -versus-

State of Odisha & Ors. ..... Opposite Parties Mr. C.K. Pradhan, AGA CORAM:

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY

ORDER

10.12.2025 Order No.01

1. This matter is taken up through hybrid mode.

2. Heard learned counsel appearing for the parties.

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

“It is therefore prayed your Lordship may graciously be pleased to issue a Rule Nisi in the nature of Mandamus calling upon the Opp. Parties to show cause as to why:

I. The impugned punishment imposed upon the Petitioner dt.11.12.2020, 21.05.2021 & 30.08.2022 vide Annexure-6, 7 & 8 respectively will not be quashed and suspension period of the Petitioner from 10.05.2018 to 14.11.2018 (41 days) will not be treated as duty on leave dues as due and admissible and be regularised as leave dues under the Orissa Leave Rules, 1966.

II. Pass any other order (s) as deem fit and proper.

If the opp. Parties will fail to show cause to show insufficient or false cause made the said Rule Nisi absolute and allow the Writ Petition.

And for this act of your kindness the Petitioner as in duty bound shall ever pray.”

4. It is contended that in the proceeding initiated against the Petitioner vide Memorandum dt.27.11.2018 under Annexure-3, Petitioner participated in the proceeding by filing his Written Statement of defence. However, without proper appreciation of the stand taken by the Petitioner, Opp. Party No.4 while disposing the Proceeding vide the impugned order dt.07.12.2020, imposed the punishment of one Black Mark and treated the period of suspension from 05.10.2018 to 14.11.2018 “as such”, Petitioner challenging the same moved the appellate authority-Opp. Party No.2, but the appellate authority confirmed the order of punishment so passed. Accordingly, Petitioner moved the Revisional Authority-Opp. Party No.2.

4.1. It is contended that Opp. Party No.2 while disposing the Revision vide order dt.30.08.2022 under Annexure-8 quashed the punishment of one Black Mark and modified the same to a punishment of “Censure in SB”. However, Opp. Party No.2 upheld the order treating the period of suspension “as such”. It is contended that punishment to treat period of suspension “as such”, since is not prescribed under PMR- 824, such a punishment could not have been imposed on the Petitioner all through. PMR-824 reads as follows:

"824. Description of departmental punishments. The following punishments which are sanctioned u/s 7 of Act. V of 1861 may be inflicted departmentally on a police officer of and below the rank of Inspector:-

(a ) Dismissal (b) Removal [b-1]-Compulsory retirement; and]

(c) Reduction in rank, (d) Reduction in time-scale (e) Withholding of the next increment for a specific offence, with or without corresponding postponement of subsequent increments, (f ) Black mark or marks, (g) Removal from any office of distinction or specific emolument, (h) Censure, (i) Warning, (j) Confinements to quarters for a period not exceeding

15 days, (k) punishment drill, and (l) Extra guard or other duty:

Provided that the punishments mentioned in Clauses (i) to (m) shall not be imposed on any officer of or above the rank of Sub-Inspector nor the punishment mentioned in (I) on any Assistant sub-inspector, Constable of Ordinary Reserve and Havildar of Armed Reserve Punishments mentioned in Clauses (a) to (h) are classed as major and the rest are minor. All major punishments and censure shall be entered in the service book other minor punishments may be so entered if the officer awarding the punishment so directs.

Note 1:- Superintendents may use the orderly Room Register in P.M. Form No. 114 when dealing with cases of misconduct and breaches of discipline in which the punishments mentioned In Clauses (k) to (1) are imposed. Note 2:- Forfeiture of pay for overstaying have (Service Code Rule 144) and deductions from pay o