Orissa High Court
Dibya Ranjan Biswal vs State Of Odisha & Others .... Opp. ... on 28 October, 2025
Author: Biraja Prasanna Satapathy
Bench: Biraja Prasanna Satapathy
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
W.P.(C) No.15650 OF 2022
In the matter of an application under Articles 226 and
227 of the Constitution of India
..................
Dibya Ranjan Biswal Petitioner
....
-versus-
State of Odisha & Others .... Opp. Parties
For Petitioner : Ms. B.K. Pattanaik, Advocate
For Opp. Parties : Mr. A. Tripathy,
Addl. Govt. Advocate
PRESENT:
THE HONBLE MR.JUSTICE BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY
------------------------------------------------------------------
Date of Hearing:28.10.2025 and Date of Judgment:28.10.2025 --
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Biraja Prasanna Satapathy, J.
1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Mode.
2. Heard learned counsel appearing for the parties.
3. The present Writ Petition has been filed inter alia
challenging the order of punishment passed against the
// 2 //
Petitioner vide order dt.26.10.2016 under Annexure-5,
so confirmed by the Appellate authority vide his order
dt.31.10.2017 under Annexure-7 and by the revisional
authority vide order dt.24.01.2018 under Annexure-9
and subsequent order passed on dt.16.06.2022 under
Annexure-11, in the proceeding initiated on 28.02.2015
under Annexure-1.
4. It is contended that Petitioner while continuing in
Service as a Fireman in the establishment of Opp. party
No.4, a proceeding was initiated against him vide
Memorandum dtd.28.02.2015 under Annexure-1 inter
alia on the ground that Petitioner remained on
unauthorized leave for the period 13.07.2014 to
06.11.2015.
4.1. Learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner
contended that Petitioner while continuing as a Fireman,
he availed leave w.e.f 08.07.2014 to 12.07.2014 with due
sanction of the C.L. But since Petitioner remained under
treatment in S.C.B Medical College and Hospital, Cuttack
w.e.f 12.07.2014 vide O.P.D Regd. No.124115
// 3 //
dtd.12.07.2014 till 27.10.2015, he could not join in his
services for the period from 13.07.2014 to 27.10.2015.
4.2. Even though such a stand was taken by the
Petitioner in his Written Statement of Defence and the
Inquiry Officer while accepting such stand of the
Petitioner, gave the finding that sick period of the
Petitioner w.e.f 12.07.2014 to 28.10.2015 is duly proved,
save and except for the period 28.10.2015 to 05.11.2015,
but Opp. Party No.4 being the Disciplinary authority
without accepting the finding of the Inquiry Officer,
issued the 1st and thereafter the 2nd show-cause on
22.06.2016 under Annexure-4, proposing therein to treat
the period from 13.07.2014 to 05.11.2015 as Leave
without Pay.
4.3. It is contended that Petitioner though submitted his
reply to the 2nd show-cause but without proper
appreciation of the same, the proceeding was disposed of
by Opp. Party No.4 vide the impugned order dt.26.10.2016
under Annexure-5, wherein the period 13.07.2014 to
05.11.2015 was treated as Leave without Pay and the
Petitioner was censured.
// 4 //
4.4. It is contended that even though Petitioner moved
the Appellate authority as well as the Revisional
authority, but his prayer was rejected vide orders issued
under Annexures-7,9 & 11 respectively.
4.5. It is contended that while availing leave for the
period from 08.07.2014 to 12.07.2014, Petitioner
remained under treatment in S.C.B. Medical College and
Hospital, Cuttack for the period from 12.07.2014 to
27.10.2015 and he was declared fit to resume his duty
w.e.f 28.10.2015. Such plea taken by the Petitioner was
duly considered and accepted by the Inquiry Officer in
his report under Annexure-3. However, Opp. party No.4
being the Disciplinary Authority, without proper
appreciation of the Petitioner's stand and the report
submitted by the Inquiry Officer under Anexure-3, not
only proposed to treat the period from 28.10.2015 to
05.11.2015 as Leave without Pay, but also confirmed the
same with passing of the impugned order under
Annexure-5.
4.6. It is also contended that even though challenging
the order passed under Annexure-5, Petitioner moved the
// 5 //
appellate authority as well as Revisional Authority, but
Opp. party No.3 being the Appellate Authority rejected
the appeal vide order dt.31.10.2017 under Annexure-7.
Not only that Opp. Party No.2 being the revisional
authority also rejected the revision vide order
dt.24.01.2018 under Annexure-8 and the mercy petition
vide order under Annexure-11 dt.16.06.2022, without
proposing appreciation.
4.7. Learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner
contended that on the face of the document being
produced by the Petitioner that he was under treatment
in the S.C.B Medical College and Hospital, Cuttack for
the period 12.07.2014 to 27.10.2015, the said period
could not have been treated as Leave without Pay. It is
also contended that during the relevant time, Petitioner
was leave in his account and the said period should
have been treated as Leave due and admissible. It is
accordingly contended that the impugned orders are not
sustainable in the eye of law and requires interference of
this Court.
// 6 //
5. Mr. A. Tripathy, learned Addl. Govt. Advocate while
supporting the impugned order contended that since
Petitioner after availing leave for the period 08.07.2012 to
12.07.2014, never joined in his work and remained on
unauthorized absence for the period from 13.07.2014 to
05.11.2015 without submitting any leave application the
proceeding against the Petitioner was initiated with the
charges that Petitioner remained on unauthorized absent
from 13.07.2014 to 05.11.2015 under Annexure-1. Even
though the Inquiry Officer in his report under Annexure-
3, held that Petitioner has proved his leave for the period
from 12.07.2014 to 28.10.2015, but Opp. party No.4
being the Disciplinary Authority while disagreeing with
the finding of the Inquiry Officer, issued the 2nd show-
cause under Anexure-4, while proposing to treat the
period from 13.07.2014 to 05.11.2015 as Leave without
Pay. With due consideration of the reply so made by the
Petitioner to the 2nd show-cause, while disposing the
proceeding vide order dt.26.10.2016 under Anexure-5,
Opp. Party No.4 imposed the punishment to treat the
// 7 //
period from 13.07.2014 to 05.11.2015 as Leave without
Pay.
5.1. It is contended that Appeal and Revision filed by
the Petitioner against such order of punishment was also
rejected by Opp. Party No.2 & 3 vide orders issued under
Annexures-7,9 & 11. It is accordingly contended that
since the order of punishment passed by the Disciplinary
authority is confirmed by the Appellate authority as well
as the Revisional authority and there is no allegation that
the proceeding was not conducted in accordance with
law, no interference is called for to the order of
punishment passed under Annexure-5. Learned Addl.
Govt. Advocate relies on the stand taken in Para-7 of the
Counter affidavit in support of his aforesaid submission.
Para-7 of the counter affidavit reads as follows:
7. That, in reply to the assertions made at
Paragraph No.5 of the Writ Petition, this deponent
humbly begs to submit that there was no afogle
application of the Petitioner for extension of leave or
any intimation regarding his medical treatment
received at this end. It is made clear from medical
certificate produced by the Petitioner during the course
of enquiry that, he was undergoing treatment as an
outdoor patient.
It is apparent from the record that, the Petitioner
availed leave w.e.f. 08-07-2014 for his ill health
treatment, but the Petitioner in a pre-planned manner
// 8 //
on the last day of leave Le on 12-07-2014 visited to
the hospital to keep the authority in blind with the help
of such arranged medical document. Besides, the
Petitioner in-between the whole over stayal period has
neither submitted his representation for extension of
leave nor submitted the medical record towards his
treatment. The Petitioner furnished the arranged
medical documents during the course of regular
departmental inquiry, which clearly shows the ill
Intention of the Petitioner. Thus, the allegation made in
this para is not true.
6. To the submission made by the learned Addl. Govt.
Advocate, Ms. B.K. Pattanaik, learned counsel appearing
for the Petitioner made further submission inter alia
contending that after availing leave for the period
08.07.2014 to 12.07.2014, when Petitioner because of
his suffering and treatment in S.C.B Medical College &
Hospital, Cuttack, could not join on 13.07.2014, he
submitted leave applications under Annexure-2 series
seeking extension of the leave from time to time. Not
only that, Petitioner though submitted his joining after
being declared fit on 28.10.2015 so enclosed under
Annexure-2 series, but his joining was not accepted
which was ultimately accepted on 06.11.2015. It is
accordingly contended that the ground on which the
Petitioner has been imposed with the punishment to
// 9 //
treat the period 13.07.2014 to 5.11.2015 as leave without
pay is not sustainable in the eye of law.
7. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and
considering the submission made, it is found that the
Petitioner while in service, the proceeding in question was
initiated against him vide Memorandum dtd28.02.2015
under Annexure-1. In the said proceeding, charge was
framed with regard to unauthorized absence of the
Petitioner for the period from 13.07.2014 to 05.11.2015.
7.1. This Court after going through the materials
available on record finds that Petitioner in support of his
absence for the period from 12.07.2014 to 27.10.2015
produced various documents before the Inquiry Officer
with regard to his treatment in S.C.B Medical College and
Hospital, Cuttack. Such stand of the Petitioner that he
was under treatment from 12.07.2014 to 27.10.2015 was
accepted by the Inquiry Officer while submitting his
report under Annexure-3. On the face of such finding of
the Inquiry Officer, the period in question was treated as
Leave without Pay vide the impugned order passed under
Annexure-5, further confirmed by the Appellate authority
// 10 //
and the Revisional Authority vide orders issued under
Annexures-7,9 & 11.
7.2. Considering the Inquiry report available under
Annexure-3 and the fact that Petitioner was under
treatment for the period 12.07.2014 to 27.10.2015 in
S.C.B Medical College and Hospital, Cuttack which was
duly proved before the Inquiry Officer, it is the view of
this Court that the period in question could not have
been treated as Leave without Pay.
7.3. Accordingly, this Court while is inclined to interfere
with order dt.26.10.2016 so passed by Opp. Party No.4
under Annexure-5, further confirmed by Opp. Party No.3
in his order dt.31.10.2017 under Annexure-7 and by
Opp. Party No.2 vide his order dt.24.01.2018 and
16.06.2022 under Annexures-9 & 11, quash the orders
accordingly.
7.4. While quashing the orders under Annexures-5,7,9
& 11, this Court directs Opp. Party No.4 to treat the
period from 12.07.2014 to 05.11.2015 as "Leave due and
admissible" and pass an appropriate order in that regard
// 11 //
and extend the benefit as due and admissible. This
Court directs Opp. Party No.4 to complete the entire
within a period of 2 (two) months from the date of receipt
of this Order.
7.5. The Writ Petition accordingly stands disposed of.
(Biraja Prasanna Satapathy)
Judge
Orissa High Court, Cuttack
Dated the 28th October, 2025/sangita
Reason: authenticaiton of order
Location: high ocurt of orissa, cuttack
Date: 06-Nov-2025 15:04:30
