IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK WP(C) No. 36675 of 2022 Shishir Kumar Das ..... Petitioner Mr. S.K. Mishra, Sr. Advocate along with Mr. J. Pradhan, Advocate -versus-

Union of India & Ors. ..... Opposite Parties Mr. P.K. Parhi, DSGI along with Mr. A. Mohanty, CGC CORAM:

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY

ORDER

04.02.2026 Order No. 13

1. This matter is taken up through hybrid mode.

2. Additional affidavit filed by the Union of India with service of copy on the learned Sr. Counsel appearing for the Petitioner in Court be kept in record.

3. Heard Mr. S.K. Mishra, learned Sr. Counsel appearing for the Petitioner along with Mr. J. Pradhan, learned counsel and Mr. P.K. Parhi, learned DSGI appearing for the Opp. Parties along with Mr.

A. Mohanty, learned CGC.

4. The present writ petition has been filed inter alia with the following prayer:-

“It is, therefore prayed that this Hon’ble Court may graciously be pleased to admit this writ application, issue notice to the Opp. Parties, call for the relevant records and after hearing the counsel for the parties, the impugned order dated 13.10.2022 and Letter dated

15.10.202 under Annexures-9 series be quashed and consequently may be reinstated in his service;

And may further be pleased to pass such other further order/orders as this Hon’ble Court deems just, equitable and proper in the facts and circumstances of the present case;

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

5. Learned Sr. Counsel appearing for the Petitioner contended that in the proceeding initiated against the Petitioner vide Memorandum dtd.16.08.2022 under Annexure-5, he was imposed with the punishment by the disciplinary authority-Opp. Party No. 4. Vide the said order Petitioner was imposed with the punishment of withholding of his next annual increment for 3 years with cumulative effect under power schedule- III of RPF Rules, 1987.

5.1. It is contended that Petitioner when preferred an appeal against such order of punishment before the appellate authority on 23.11.2021 so available under Annexure-L to the additional affidavit filed in Court today, the appellate authority issued a show-cause on 23.02.2022 under Annexure-M to the additional affidavit, proposing therein to enhance the punishment in terms of the provisions contained under Rule 217.3 of the RPF Rules, 1987.

5.2. It is contended that Petitioner since could not file his reply to the show-cause, the appellate authority enhanced the punishment with passing of order dtd.02.08.2022 under Annexure-I to the counter affidavit, and while passing the said order, the appellate authority exercised the power conferred under Rule 219.4 of the RPF Rules, 1987 and as per the order of the competent authority. The appellate authority while enhancing the punishment, imposed the punishment of withholding of his next annual increment for a further period of one year with cumulative effect.

5.3. Learned Sr. Counsel appearing for the Petitioner vehemently contended that since the appellate authority in exercise of the power conferred under Rule 219.4 of the Rules, enhanced the punishment so passed by the disciplinary authority, vide the impugned order dtd.13.10.2022 so communicated on 15.10.2022 under Annexure-9 sereis, the revisional authority-Opp. Party No. 2 could not have exercised the self-same power under Rule 219.4 of the Rules and while exercising such power, could not have passed an order of compulsory retirement from service with immediate effect.

5.4. It is contended that since the appellate authority enhanced the punishment by exercising the power conferred under Rule 219.4 of the Rules, the revisional authority is not competent to exercise the said power once again by enhancing the punishment to a punishment of compulsory retirement.

5.5. It is also contended that after enhancement of the punishment by the appellate authority vide order under Annexure-I to the counter affidavit, Petitioner though was served with a notice by the a