IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

W.P.(C) No.32090 of 2025

Pradipta Kumar Panda Petitioner

….

Mr. B.B. Mohanty, Advocate

-versus-

State of Odisha & Ors.

…. Opposite Parties

Mr. P.K. Panda, ASC

CORAM:

JUSTICE BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY

ORDER

07.01.2026

Order No.

02. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid

Arrangement (Virtual/Physical) Mode.

2. Heard learned counsel appearing for the Parties.

3. Pursuant to the order dtd.18.11.2025, learned Addl. Standing Counsel for the State produced the instruction provided by the Collectorate, Malkangiri vide its letter dtd.18.12.2025. The same be kept in

record.

4. The present Writ Petition has been filed inter alia

with the following prayer:-

“Under the above circumstances, it is therefore humbly prayed that this Hon’ble Court may graciously be pleased to issue a writ/writs in an appropriate nature quash the Order of Punishment dated 11.08. 2016 as modified by Order dated 30.10. 2025 under Annexures

15, whereby while finalising the Proceeding and Imposing Three Minor Punishments, in one Disciplinary Proceeding, Collector Malkangiri has imposed a Punishment "Period of Suspension treated as Such (Not Duty) even though such a Punishment is not Prescribed under Rule 13 and is against the Law laid down by this Hon’ble Court in Banibhusan Dash Vs. State of Orissa in W.P.(C) No-7653/2019as well as order passed in Dr. Smita Mohanty in W.P(O.A) Νο. 2585/ 2016 under annexure-16. Besides this Hon’ble Court may further be pleased to quash the Enquiry Report dated 18.04.2016 under Annexure-10 or in the alternative direct the Respondent No- 2 to dispose of the Appeal dated 21.09. 2016 submitted through the Collector, Malkangir, under Annexure 13 Series against the Order of Punishment dated 11.08.2016 on consideration of the Representation dated 25.02. 2024 and exonerate the Petitioner as a consequence thereof with direction to the Opp. Parties to grant all consequential service and financial benefits Or pass such other order/orders as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.”

5. It is contended that in a proceeding initiated under Rule-15 of the OCS (CCA) Rules, 1962 under Annexure-6, Petitioner was imposed with the following punishment by the disciplinary authority, Collector, Malkanagiri- Opposite Party No.3 under Annexure-15:-

“1. He is censured.

2. The period of suspension is treated as such (non-duty).

3. Withholding of one Annual Periodical Increment without cumulative effect”.

5.1. Learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner contended that since Opposite Party No.3 while disposing the proceeding imposed the minor punishment of Censure and withholding of one Annual Increment without cumulative effect, on the face of such minor punishment being imposed, the period of suspension could not have been treated as such in view of the decision of this Court in the case of Bani Bhusan Dash so followed by this Court in the case of Dr. Smita Mohanty so available under Annexure-16.

5.2. It is contended that since minor punishment was imposed on the Petitioner vide the impugned order dtd.30.10.2025, the period of suspension is required to be treated as duty for all purposes. This Court in Para- 6 of the judgment in the case of Dr. Smita Mohanty has held as follows:-

“6. Having heard learned counsel appearing for the Parties and taking into account the materials available on record, it is found that while disposing the proceeding the Petitioner was imposed with a minor punishment i.e. stoppage of two increments without cumulative effect. On the face of such punishment imposed and in view of the decisions as cited supra, the period of suspension should not have been treated as such instead of treating the same as duty. Therefore, this Court is inclined to quash the order so far as it relates to treat the period of suspension as such. While quashing the same, this Court directs the Opp. Party No. 1 to treat the period of suspension as duty and extend the financial benefit as due and ad