Orissa High Court
Union Of India And Others vs Purnendu Sekhar Pati And on 20 June, 2025
Author: S.K. Sahoo
Bench: S.K. Sahoo
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
WP(C) No.13691 of 2025
Union of India and others .... Petitioners
Mr. Sidharth Sankar Mohapatra,
Senior Panel Counsel
-versus-
Purnendu Sekhar Pati and
others .... Opp. Parties
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.K. SAHOO
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SIBO SANKAR MISHRA
ORDER
Order No. 20.06.2025
01. This matter is taken up through Hybrid
arrangement (video conferencing/physical mode).
This writ petition has been filed by the Union of
India and others challenging the order dated 30.10.2024
passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Cuttack
Bench, Cuttack in O.A. No.260/0091 of 2023.
It appears that the opp. party no.1-Purnendu
Sekhar Pati filed the aforesaid O.A. with the following
prayer:
"I) To quash the order of rejection
Signed by: RAJESH KUMAR BADHEI
Designation: Junior Stenographer
Reason: Authentication
Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA,
CUTTACK
II) And to direct the Respondents to restore
Date: 23-Jun-2025 13:17:18
the position by withdrawing the punishment
imposed vide order dtd.24.05.2006.
III) And to direct the Respondents to release
the financial benefits arises out of withdrawal
of order of punishment dtd.24.05.2006 with
12%.
IV) And to direct the respondents to proceed
with the inquiry after restoring position by
withdrawing punishment order dtd.24.05.2006
and complete the same within six months as
per the guideline issued by the Railway Board
and judgment law of the Hon'ble Apex Court".
After hearing both the parties, the learned Central
Administrative Tribunal, Cuttack Bench, Cuttack
(hereinafter 'Tribunal') has been pleased to observe as
follows:
"6. We have considered the rival submissions
of the respective parties and facts on record. It
is not in dispute that major penalty proceeding
was initiated against the applicant vide
memorandum No.MCSW/M/D&A/Engg/PSP-
44/3020 dated 03.09.2004 and vide order
dated 24.05.2006, the applicant was faced
with the punishment of revers on from the post
of Senior Section Engineer (Works) in the scale
of pay Rs.7,450-11,500/- to the grade of
Section Engineer (Works) in the scale of pay
Rs.6,500/-10,500/- for a period of 02 years on
cumulative basis. During the period of penalty,
basic pay shall remain fixed at Rs.6,500/- and
during this period Dearness Pay and Dearness
Allowance shall be calculated on the basis of
the fixed Basic Pay of Rs.6,500/-. On
completion of the period of penalty, his future
increments shall stand postponed by these 02
years and his seniority shall be adversely
affected accordingly. Be that as it may in
compliance of the order of this Tribunal the
authority concerned considered the grievance
of the applicant and vide order dated
20.09.2022 set aside the order of punishment
which was upheld by the revisional authority
vide order dated 19/23.11.2022. It is also
admitted fact that fresh enquiry proceeding in
pursuance of the memorandum
No.W.4/416/D&A Corres/4151 dated
19/23.11.2022 is under way. Once the order of
punishment is set aside obviously and
axiomatically the punishment imposed on him
is no more available in the field and the
implication of imposition of penalty including
benefits which were withheld because of the
punishment order ought to have been restored
in favour of the applicant. The respondents did
not produce any authority (rules and law) to
justify their action that in the above
circumstances an employee is not entitled to
the benefits. In the above circumstances we
find sufficient force in the submission of the
learned counsel for the applicant that denial of
the restoration and benefits which were
withheld by virtue of the order dated
24.05.2006 is not sustainable in the eyes of
law.
7. In the circumstances the order dated
16.02.2023 denying the applicant the benefits
is hereby quashed. The respondents are
directed to restore the applicant to the post of
Senior Section Engineer (Works) in the scale of
pay Rs.7,450/-11,500/- and grant him
consequential financial benefits within a period
of 120 days from the date of receipt of the
copy of this order".
After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioners
and going through the reasons assigned by the learned
Tribunal, we find no infirmity or illegality in the
impugned order. Accordingly, the writ petition being
devoid of merits stands dismissed.
( S.K. Sahoo)
Judge
( S.S. Mishra)
Judge
Rajesh
