IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C) No.4274 of 2026 Raj Kishore Sahoo @ Raj Kishore …. Petitioner Ms. S. Mohapatra, Advocate -versus-

State of Odisha and Others …. Opposite Parties Mr. S. Das, ASC CORAM:

JUSTICE BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY

ORDER

Order No. 17.02.2026

02. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual/Physical) Mode.

2. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

3. Pursuant to order dated 11.02.2026, learned Addl. Standing Counsel produced the instruction provided by the Directorate of Animal Husbandry & Veterinary Services in Court. The same be kept in record.

inter alia

4. The present Writ Petition has been filed challenging order dated 20.01.2026, so passed by Opp.

Party No.2 under Annexure-14.

5. It is the main contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that after remand of the matter vide order dated 12.11.2025 in W.P.(C) No.23785 of 2025, petitioner was imposed with the punishment by treating the period of suspension as leave due and admissible, without following the statutory provision contained under Rule- 15(10)(i)(a) and 15(10)(i)(b) of OCS(CCA) Rules, 1962 (in short “Rules”).

5.1. It is contended that this Court while remitting the matter for fresh disposal vide order dated 12.11.2025 in W.P.(C) No.23785 of 2025, permitted Opp. Party No.2 to take up the proceeding from the stage of supply of the enquiry report and to dispose the same in accordance with law. But without providing copy of the enquiry report along with 1^st show-cause and thereafter proposing the punishment by issuing the 2^nd show-cause, the proceeding was disposed of vide the impugned order dated 20.01.2026 under Annexure-14.

5.2. Since statutory provision contained under Rule- 15(10)(i)(a) and 15(10)(i)(b) of the Rules were never followed, the impugned order of punishment is not sustainable in the eye of law.

6. Basing on the instruction, learned Addl. Standing Counsel contended that since no punishment as such has been imposed, petitioner is no way aggrieved by the same. It is contended that since petitioner admittedly remained under suspension, the authority concerned while disposing the proceeding, has directed to treat the period of suspension as leave due and admissible and it cannot be held as a punishment in the eye of law. Since no such punishment has been imposed by Opp. Party No.2 while disposing the proceeding, there was no necessity to issue the 1^st and 2^nd show-cause as provided under Rule-15(10) of the Rules.

7. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and considering the submissions made, this Court finds that vide order dated 12.11.2025, Opp. Party No.2 was directed to conclude the proceeding in accordance with law as after submission of the enquiry report, no further action was taken. However, it is found that after remand of the matter vide the aforesaid order, the proceeding was disposed of vide the impugned order by treating the period of suspension as leave due and admissible.

7.1. From the instruction so provided, it is also apparent that the statutory provision contained under Rule- 15(10)(i)(a) and 15(10)(i)(b) of the Rules has not been followed prior to disposal of the proceeding.

7.2. Since statutory provision has not been followed, it is the view of this Court that the impugned order is not sustainable in the eye of law. It is also the view of this Court that direction to treat the period of suspension as leave due and admissible, is in the nature of a punishment as it will affect the service condition of the petitioner. Therefore, such a punishment could not have been imposed without following the provisions contained under Rule 15(10)(i)(a) and 15(10)(i)(b) of the Rules.

7.3. In view of the aforesaid analysis, this Court while quashing order dated 20.01.2026 so issued under Annexure-14 by Opp. Party No.2, direct the said authority to dispose of the proceeding in accordance with law and in terms of order dated 12.11.2025.

8. The Writ Petition stands disposed of accordingly.

(Biraja Prasanna