IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C) No.21579 of 2020 Ramakanta Mohanty …. Petitioner Mr. S. Mallik, Advocate -Versus-

State of Odisha & others …. Opposite Parties Mr. S.N. Das, ASC CORAM:

MR. JUSTICE R.K. PATTANAIK

ORDER

19.02.2026 Order No.

03. 1. Heard Mr. Mallik, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State.

2. Instant writ petition is filed by the petitioner challenging the impugned order dated 2^nd July, 2020 as at Annexure-6 passed by opposite party No.2 communicated vide letter dated 16^th July, 2020 on the grounds inter alia that the same is liable to be interfered with and set aside.

3. Mr. Mallik, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was found not guilty by the Disciplinary Authority upon receiving a report of the Enquiring Officer, while he was posted as a Sepoy in the establishment of opposite party No.3 and accordingly, in absence of any evidence against him, the proceeding was directed to be dropped but it was followed by an order that the period of suspension w.e.f. 11^th April, 2013 and 17^th June, 2014 i.e. 432 days not to be treated as duty instead the same has been adjusted as against the E.L account for 150 days, 239 days as against HPL and 43 days only for being treated as duty. The said decision with respect to 150 days adjusted against the E.L account out of the suspension period was challenged in appeal as per Annexure-5 inadvertently before opposite party No.2 and in any case, it was disposed of vide Annexure-6. The contention is that opposite party No.2 in disagreement with the findings of the Enquiring Officer and Disciplinary Authority instead imposed punishment and directed the custody period as EL/HPL and interfered with the decision and restored to the stage of second show cause notice and proposed punishment of two black marks instead. The submission is that opposite party No.2 could not have overturned the decision of the Disciplinary Authority and imposed the punishment, which is not permissible under law. In support of such contention as regards the suspension period treated as leave due whether permissible or not, Mr. Mallik, learned counsel for the petitioner cited a decision of this Court in Bani Bhusan Dash Vrs. State of Odisha and others 2021 (III) ILR-CUT-528. The further contention is that in view of the decision (supra), suspension as leave due since not permissible and the impugned order cannot be sustained, hence, the decision as per Annexure-6 by opposite party No.2 imposing punishment and treating the custody period as EL/HPL is bad in law.

4. Recorded the submission of Mr. Das, learned ASC for the State, according to whom, the impugned order at Annexure-

6 is perfectly justified.

5. The decision in Bani Bhusan Dash (supra) relates to imposition of punishment by the Disciplinary Authority, wherein, the suspension period was treated as a leave due and considering the same, this Court held therein that the same is impermissible in absence of any provision under the Odisha Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal), Rules, 1962 and according to Mr. Mallik, learned counsel for the petitioner, the same is squarely applicable to the case at hand. Quite interestingly, the appeal of the petitioner was entertained by opposite party No.2 though not maintainable and while dealing with the same, the punishment has been proposed with two black marks. It was an appeal by the petitioner against the decision of the Disciplinary Authority to the extent aggrieved though exonerated of the charges levelled. But, while entertaining the appeal, opposite party No.2 instead of confining it to the challenge vis-à-vis adjudgment of suspension period as leave due, proposed the punishment. In the considered view of the Court, the impugned decision as per Annexure-6 is not tenable in law for having transgressed beyond the jurisdiction as he was only to consider the legality of the decision on suspension period whether to be treated as such as has been