Orissa High Court
Satyendra Kumar vs Union Of India .... Opposite Parties on 15 September, 2025
Author: R.K. Pattanaik
Bench: R.K. Pattanaik
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
AFR
W.P. (C) No.3527 of 2020
Satyendra Kumar .... Petitioner
Ms. Sonita Biswal, Advocate
-Versus-
Union of India .... Opposite Parties
represented through the
Director General,
Central Industrial
Security Force, Ministry
of Home Affairs, New
Delhi & others
Mr. P.K. Parhi, DSGI.
Mr. S.K. Samantray, CGC
CORAM:
JUSTICE R.K. PATTANAIK
DATE OF JUDGMENT:15.09.2025
1.
Instant writ petition is filed by the petitioner for quashing
of the impugned orders as at Annexures-3, 5, 8 and 10 and to
grant him the service benefits for the period between 30th
July, 2014 and 26th April, 2018 with interest and regularizing
it and at the same time, to direct the penalty imposed to have
no any adverse effect on his future pensionary benefits on the
grounds stated.
2. As per the pleading on record, the petitioner is to have
been imposed with multiple punishments without conducting
a fresh enquiry. It is claimed that the period between the date
of compulsory retirement from service up to the day before
the date of reinstatement has been treated as dies non and the
same stood confirmed by the Appellate Authority though
modifying the penalty imposed to the one of reduction in pay
by two stages for a period of two years with immediate
effect. The contention of the petitioner is that such decision
of the Appellate Authority has been confirmed vide
Annexure-10 and all such decisions of the authorities below
are in violation of the principles of natural justice and result
of non-application of judicial mind and hence, arbitrary,
illegal and thus, liable to be quashed.
3. While in service, alleging disobedience, with the
disciplinary action initiated, the petitioner was imposed with
a major penalty of compulsory retirement on the following
article of charges: (i) for gross indiscipline and disobedience
of lawful order by not complying the direction of the Senior
Commandant, CISF to appear for counselling on the date
fixed; and (ii) finding no improvement in his conduct in spite
of being awarded one major and eight minor penalties earlier.
A copy of the chargesheet is at Annexure-1 and referring to
same, it is stated that with the disciplinary proceeding
initiated, such penalty was imposed, whereafter, the
petitioner preferred an appeal and ultimately, approached the
Revisional Authority, who confirmed the punishment of
compulsory retirement, consequent upon which, W.P.(C)
No.17133 of 2015 filed by him was disposed of on 16th
March, 2018 setting aside the punishment as disproportionate
with a direction to the Disciplinary Authority to pass a fresh
order. The claim of the petitioner is that without further
enquiry held in terms of the above direction, the petitioner
was directed to be reinstated but was imposed with a penalty
of reduction of pay by four stages in Level-3 for a period of
four years by the impugned order dated 24th April, 2018 as at
Annexure-3, against which, a representation dated 25th May,
2018 i.e. Annexure-4 was submitted for a decision by the
DG, CISF but in the meantime, he was served with another
order dated 20th June, 2018 i.e. Annexure-5, wherein,
consequent upon, the order i.e.Annexure-3, the intervening
period between 30th July, 2014 and 26th April, 2018 was
treated as dies non for all purposes. It is pleaded that against
such an order as per Annexure-5, the petitioner preferred an
appeal and it was followed by the order dated 2nd April, 2019
(Annexure-8). It is further pleaded that against the said order,
a revision was filed and it was dismissed vide Annexure-10.
Reiterating the facts earlier pleaded in W.P.(C) No.17133 of
2015, the contention of the petitioner is that imposition of a
major penalty is illegal especially considering the charge (i)
and also the decision to decline him the service benefits
during the period treated as dies non. It is claimed that the
alleged period declared as dies non is a penalty as such and
that apart, it has been directed without following Rule 55 of
the Central Industrial Security Force Rules, 2001 (hereinafter
referred to as 'the Rules') and hence, amounts to imposing
more penalties than one. Finally. it is pleaded that the gravity
of the charge is not so grievous and therefore, the penalty
was held to be disproportionate by this Court while disposing
of W.P.(C) No.17133 of 2015 but still it was followed by a
decision substituting another major punishment and also
denying the petitioner the service benefits for the dies non
period, hence, it is illegal and unsustainable in law.
4. On the contrary, the opposite parties filed the counter
affidavit and justifies the penalty imposed on the petitioner
by pleading therein that he was to respond to the counselling
as was directed by the Senior Commandant, CISF but he did
not turn up and hence, disobeyed the same and in view of
Section 10(a) of the Central Industrial Security Force Act,
1968 (shortly as 'the Act'), each and every member of the
force is required to promptly follow and execute all the
orders lawfully issued by the superiors. It is pleaded that the
petitioner did not appear before the Senior Officers on earlier
occasions as well and for such misconduct and deliberate
disobedience, he was awarded punishments. As far as the
punishment imposed on the petitioner at present is concerned,
it is further pleaded that upon reinstatement in service, the
Disciplinary Authority allowed reduction of pay and it has
been upheld in appeal and revision and as such, there is no
error or illegality committed as the entire exercise was
undertaken duly complying the Rules. As regards, the
intervening period between compulsory retirement and before
reinstatement of the petitioner in service, the pleading is to
the effect that it has been rightly treated as dies non for all
purposes and is entirely in consonance with Rule 55 of the
Rules on the cardinal principle of 'no work, no pay'.
According to the opposite parties, the penalty imposed by the
Disciplinary Authority has been reduced in appeal as per
Annexure-H and confirmed by the Revisional Authority vide
Annexure-I. As regards, the plea of the petitioner challenging
the penalty imposed, according to the opposite parties, he has
not been exonerated, rather, reinstated while following the
directions of the Court at Annexure-2 and to consider a
penalty commensurating the charges levelled as compulsory
retirement was held to be grossly disproportionate and in
compliance thereof, the penalty, such as, reduction to a lower
stage in the time scale of pay was inflicted upon with an
order on dies non vis-à-vis the alleged period upon
reinstatement of the petitioner. The penalty imposed and
upheld in revision, as per the opposite parties, to be just and
proper and according to the provisions of the Act and Rules.
5. Heard Ms. Biswal, learned counsel for the petitioner and
Mr. Samantray, learned CGC for the opposite parties.
6. Perused the rejoinder affidavit filed by the petitioner.
7. Ms. Biswal, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
no further enquiry has been held complying the judgment of
this Court in W.P.(C) No.17133 of 2015. It is contended that
the punishment imposed on the petitioner of compulsory
retirement has been interfered with but it is followed by
another major penalty and that too, for a minor charge for
failing to attend counselling before the Senior Commandant,
CISF in absence of any intimation received in writing, which
was requested, whereas, by letter dated 16th February, 2016 at
Annexure-11, an employee, namely, AI Soudagar, a
Constable was intimated for the said purpose. It is also
contended that the punishment imposed on the petitioner is
not in terms of Rule 34 of the Rules. The further submission
is that any such decision treating the alleged period as dies
non is no less than a penalty and therefore, the procedure
envisaged in Rule 36 of the Rules should have been followed
and as there has been no any enquiry held, the opposite
parties committed illegality in imposing such punishment
besides reduction of pay to a lower stage, which cannot be
sustained keeping in view the fact that imposing a
punishment for a proved delinquency is regulated and
controlled by the statutory rules and therefore, the authorities,
while performing the quasi-judicial functions are not
permitted to ignore the same, inasmuch as, a Disciplinary
Authority is bound to strictly adhere to the rules in place.
Lastly, it is contended that the punishment under Annexure-3
modified under Annexure-8 and finally, upheld in revision
vide Annexure-10 is not in accordance with the Rules and
hence, the same are liable to be quashed.
8. On the other hand, Mr. Samantray, learned CGC referred
to the counter affidavit and charges framed against the
petitioner and contended that upon reinstatement of the
petitioner in service, he has been visited with a penalty with
reduction in pay to a lower stage and the same is reasonable
and perfectly justified having regard to the disobedience
alleged against him. It is further submitted by Mr. Samantray,
learned CGC that an enquiry was held on the charges levelled
against the petitioner and finally, it led to the removal order
but it has been substituted complying the directions in
W.P.(C) No.17133 of 2015. It is contended that the petitioner
once received a major penalty with eight other minor
punishments during his service tenure for various acts of
indiscipline and at last, for the alleged default to attend the
counselling, the disciplinary proceeding was initiated in
accordance with Rule 36 of the Rules and ultimately, the
impugned order as per Annexure-3 followed and later on
modified by the Authority in appeal and finally, confirmed in
revision. When enquiry was conducted and it has not been
held to be improper or vitiated for having not followed the
rules, the authorities below did not err in any manner, while
imposing the penalty with reduction in pay for a specified
period. The petitioner, since, a member of the disciplined
force, according to Mr. Samantray, learned CGC, has been
rightly penalized for the misconduct, hence, the impugned
decision vide Annexure-3 modified and confirmed by the
concerned authorities as at Annexures-8 and 10 should be
tinkered with.
9. If it is rightly understood, the petitioner is imposed with a
penalty prescribed in Rule 34(v) of the Rules. In fact, the
Disciplinary Authority pursuant to the judgment in W.P.(C)
No.17133 of 2015 reduced the penalty to the extent of
reduction of pay by four stages from Rs.26,800/- to
Rs.23,800/- in Level-3 for a period of four years with
immediate effect and that the petitioner during the period of
reduction shall not earn increment of pay and upon expiry of
the said period, it shall have the effect of postponing his
future increment of pay, But, such a penalty imposed as per
Annexure-3 stood modified by the Appellate Authority vide
Annexure-8 and further reduced to the extent of reduction of
pay by two stages as per Level-3 for a period of two years
and directed that the petitioner shall earn increment of pay
during the period of reduction and such reduction shall have
no effect or postponement of his future increment. The said
order stood confirmed, while considering the revision filed as
per Annexure-9 and disposed of vide Annexure-10.
10. Admittedly, a major penalty has been imposed on the
petitioner as per the Rules and according to Ms. Biswal,
learned counsel for the petitioner, no fresh enquiry has been
held. The record reveals that the enquiry was held following
due procedure with an opportunity provided to the petitioner.
No instances have been brought to the notice of the Court
regarding any such non-compliance by the Disciplinary
Authority. It is made to understand that the evidence was
considered with the witnesses examined and it was followed
by a decision, at last. Rather, it is suggested that the
petitioner could not rebut the charges and even failed to
adduce evidence during enquiry. The question is, how was
the petitioner prejudiced and what more was required to be
followed and adhered to by the Disciplinary Authority? Such
a contention of Ms. Biswal, learned counsel is unacceptable
since a detailed enquiry was conducted and for an order of
reinstatement would not mean that a de novo enquiry was to
be held.
11. Whether a fresh enquiry is demanded before the
intervening period was treated as dies non? The record
reveals that a show cause reply was invited by letter dated 3rd
May, 2018 and upon considering the representation dated
11th May, 2018 received from the petitioner, it was followed
by the order dated 20th June, 2018 i.e. Annexure-5. Whether,
such decision on dies non without service benefits is
justified? The said question needs a reply to dispel any such
impression of injustice being caused to the petitioner. The
order of compulsorily retirement of the petitioner was held to
be disproportionate and hence, this Court in W.P.(C)
No.17133 of 2015 set it aside and directed to consider the
kind of penalty imposable befitting the charges levelled and
proved against him. It is not a case of exoneration on merits
or for any such non-compliance of rules by not adhering to
Article 311(2) of the Constitution of India that the
Disciplinary Authority was required to conduct a fresh
enquiry. The remand of the matter for a decision by the
Disciplinary Authority was confined to the determination of
right and just penalty to be imposed and not exoneration.
Under such circumstances, while complying the Court's
judgment at Annexure-2, no fresh enquiry was to be held as it
was never a direction therein and therefore, the Disciplinary
Authority simply reconsidered the penalty and was further
modified in appeal and upheld in revision. So therefore, the
contention of Ms. Biswal, learned counsel for the petitioner
that the punishment stands vitiated in absence of a fresh
enquiry is totally misconceived and if it relates to the
decision on dies non, it was not necessary but certainly to be
directed complying Rule 55 of the Rules.
12. If the submission Ms. Biswal, learned counsel for an
enquiry is referable to the decision of the authorities below to
treat the intervening period as dies non, in the considered
view of the Court, the same is to be rejected. It cannot be
allowed to contend that the Disciplinary Authority was
required to hold a fresh enquiry before directing the alleged
period to be treated as such. It is no doubt that the Authority
concerned while passing an impugned order in the
disciplinary proceeding to impose a penalty upon an enrolled
member or for that matter, the Appellate Authority or such
authority exercising revisional jurisdiction, may upon
reinstatement of the member of the force after setting aside
penalty of dismissal, removal or compulsory retirement shall
have to consider as to how the intervening period after
disengagement and upon reinstatement is to be considered
and for reasons stated may direct such period to be treated as
dies non in strict compliance of Rule 55 of the Rules. It does
mean that any such decision must be preceded by a reply
received from the enrolled member of the force and after
recording reasons in writing to treat the period as dies non.
13. Dies non is a period of unauthorized absence which is not
counted as working days for the purposes of salary, leave,
increments or pension effectively breaking the continuity for
service benefits. The period to be treated as dies non on
account of an employee's absence requires a disciplinary
enquiry, if the service rules prescribes or at least, with a fair
amount of opportunity of being heard and failure to
undertake any such exercise may render the decision invalid.
In fact, dies non has originated from a Latin term 'dies non
juridicus' meaning thereby 'not a juridical day' or 'a day of
no legal work' In service jurisprudence, any such decision on
dies non is considered not a penalty in itself but at the same
time, while treating the period as such and since severe
consequences are to follow suit affecting the service benefits,
it cannot be directed straightaway. The consequences of dies
non are typically depriving an employee of salary, leave and
increments for the declared period and in some cases, long
period of unauthorized absence treated as absence with 'no
work, no pay' may even lead to forfeiture of past service for
pension purposes unless it is treated as leave admissible as
per the rules. In normal course, dies non refers to a period,
where an employee is absent without proper authorization
and hence, not entitled to pay or other service benefits for
that period and such absence is treated as break in service
potentially affecting increments, leave accrual and pension,
however, the competent authority may condone the break and
treat it as dies non, which means, the period is not to be
counted for service benefits but continuity in service is
maintained. Since, for the misconduct on the part of the
employee, the Authority concerned in order to regularize the
service and to prevent discontinuity affecting the service
conditions may condone the absence period but before any
such decision is arrived at, any such procedure prescribed in
the rules including an enquiry to be held obviously with an
opportunity provided to the delinquent and in the case at
hand, Rule 55 of the Rules is applicable. In other words, to
treat a period as dies non though not a penalty as per Rule 34
Explanation (i) of the Rules but any such decision shall have
to be in accordance with Rule 55 thereof only after affording
an opportunity to show cause with reasons assigned.
14. Whether, any such procedure has been followed by the
Disciplinary Authority before treating the intervening period
as dies non by following Rule 55 of the Rules? As earlier
discussed, a show cause reply was called for from the
petitioner by letter date 3rd May, 2018 and it was after the
petitioner joined in service on 27th April, 2018. It was
followed by a reply dated 11th May, 2018 and finally, the
decision as per Annexure-5 arrived and at the same time,
directing the petitioner to avail the remedies by preferring
appeal as per the Rules, while dealing with his representation
dated 25th May, 2018 with an intimation as per Annexure-6
leading to the passing of the order i.e. Annexure-8.Therfore,
the conclusion of the Court is that due procedure has been
followed and complied with before reaching at a decision on
dies non and the Rules does not require an enquiry to be held
as per Rule 34 of the Rules not, the same not being a penalty.
15. As regards the charges levelled against the petitioner, the
Court is inclined to observe and conclude in the following
words. For charge (ii), it is to be stated that the same relates
to the earlier punishments and for no improvement in the
conduct of the petitioner. Is it really a charge so to say? For
the previous misconduct, the petitioner was penalized. No
further punishment on any such ground can be imposed.
Whether a disciplinary proceeding on such a charge
simpliciter is maintainable? Can someone be independently
proceeded with by a departmental action for not achieving
improvement in conduct even with a background like the
petitioner? For the previous misconduct, a delinquent cannot
be once again penalized with a charge framed as the same is
forbidden under law. Neither due to lack of improvement in
one's conduct, while in service even having been penalized
before, could ever be a basis to initiate a departmental
proceeding. In the humble view of the Court, the charge (ii)
against the petitioner is totally misconceived for the above
reasons. It is rather made to suggest that the past conduct and
penalties imposed on the petitioner prevailed upon the
Disciplinary Authority to initiate the action and greatly
influenced in taking a decision to remove him from service
by compulsory retirement. It would, therefore, not be
incorrect to conclude that the petitioner was only to face
charge (i) as the other one is not a charge at all. Such a point
was never a subject of challenge before since made to appear
from Annexure-2. Nevertheless, the allegation what primarily
appears to be about disobedience by the petitioner in not
attending the counselling on the date fixed before the Senior
Commandant, CISF despite prior intimation.
16. The next question would be, whether, for the above
disobedience, the penalty imposed on the petitioner is just
and appropriate? It was for the petitioner to appear for
counselling and admittedly, he failed, hence, the action
followed. It is no doubt an act of disobedience on the part of
the petitioner for having not turned up for counselling.
Whether for such kind of disobedience, the imposed penalty
is justified? It is absolutely correct to say that disobedience
cannot be tolerated in a disciplined force. Section 10 of the
Act assigns the duty to every member of the force including
under clause (a) to promptly obey and execute all orders
lawfully issued to him by his superior authority. The CISF is
a para-military force and hence, demands highest degree of
discipline. Any kind of insubordination is intolerable and if
not sternly dealt with, it could affect morale of the force.
Therefore, any act of disobedience shall have to be visited
with action to maintain discipline in the force. But, at the
same time, it is not to be forgotten that inappropriate action
not befitting the disobedience could be counterproductive and
lead to gross injustice. What is important is to take action
imposing penalty that commensurate the wrong. Excess
penalty would be disproportionate and a lenient one becomes
ineffective, hence, it has to be just and appropriate. As a
Disciplinary Authority exercises quasi-judicial powers and is
not discharging any administrative function, it shall have to
strictly adhere to the statutory rules while imposing
punishment and that includes determination as to a just
penalty leviable. In so far as the case of the petitioner is
concerned, it was for him to attend the counselling but
instead, the subsequent events followed leading to the
departmental action. This Court in W.P.(C) No.17133 of
2015 expressed its view that a written communication for the
counselling would have been better appreciated instead of a
general order but without any observation condoning the
conduct of the petitioner. The intimation indeed a lawful
order but a communication to appear for the counselling is
essentially to guide the enrolled members penalized earlier to
improve upon their conduct and to make them understand the
adverse effects of the punishments in service career.
Admittedly, a general direction was issued with a
communication dated 28th March, 2014 carrying the name of
the petitioner therein at Serial No.21 and when he enquired
from the Senior Commandant, CISF as to why he is being
called upon for counselling and instead be allowed to appear
in the Orderly Room, the same has led to the action alleging
it to be a misconduct.
17. In course of hearing, Ms. Biswal, learned counsel for the
petitioner relies on a decision in Ranjit Thakur Vrs. Union
of India and others (1987) 4 SCC 611 to contend that the
reduced penalty is also disproportionate. In the decision
(supra), the Apex Court, while dealing with a case in relation
to a Court marital proceeding under the Army Act, 1950 held
and observed that statutory provisions are to be complied
with to ensure procedural safeguards before imposing
punishment. In fact, in the above decision, the Apex Court
reiterated the scope of judicial review and observed that it is
not directed against a decision but to the decision making
process but held that the punishment must suit the offence
and the offender though it would be within the jurisdiction
and discretion of the authority concerned. It is also concluded
that if the punishment is unduly harsh and vindictive, it is
open to judicial review. It is further observed therein that the
sentence should not be disproportionate to the offence as to
shock one's conscience and could amount in itself to be
conclusive evidence of bias. The Apex Court, in the above
case, referred to the doctrine of proportionality as a part of
the concept of judicial review.
18. Having regard to the default of the petitioner in attending
the counselling despite intimation but the purpose being to
undertake an advisory exercise and though, it was for him to
attend without fail, in the humble view of the Court,
imposing a major penalty would be a harsh decision. Perhaps
the past penalties played in the mind of the Disciplinary
Authority initially to impose a penalty of compulsory
retirement and later substituted with reduction of pay but it is
still disproportionate. On earlier occasions, stoppage of pay
was directed and once withholding of increment but lastly, a
major penalty. In failing to attend the counselling on a date
fixed, if such default is visited with a penalty in reduction of
pay, it would again be unjust and inappropriate. The Court is
not oblivious of the fact that the petitioner is a member of a
para-military force, where discipline is zealously guarded.
But, the alleged default of the petitioner could have been
tackled even without a disciplinary proceeding. As earlier
concluded, the past track record of the petitioner appears to
have propelled the action leading to his compulsory
retirement, a situation, which could have been better
managed. According to the Court, appropriate punishment for
the petitioner would be reduction of pay in the time scale by
one stage for a period of two years without cumulative effect
and not adversely affecting his pension, a minor penalty
instead as prescribed in Rule 34(viii) of the Rules. Such is the
conclusion of the Court fully cognizant of the legal position
on the power of judicial review highlighted upon by the Apex
Court in State of Uttar Pradesh & another Vrs. Man
Mohan Nath Sinha & another (2009)8SCC 310; Bharti
Airtel Limited Vrs. A.S. Raghavendra (2024)6SCC 418
and State of Rajasthan & others Vrs. Bhupendra Singh in
Civil Appeal Nos. 8546-8549 of 2024 decided on 8th August,
2024, a citation placed reliance on by Mr. Samantray, learned
CGC for the opposite parties.
19. Turning to the decision on dies non, it is not a case of
unauthorized absence of the petitioner that the period has
been so regularized. Such a decision fell upon the
Disciplinary Authority consequent upon the judgment of this
Court vide Annexure-2. The alleged period, since not a
deliberate default, in all fairness, it should have been
regularized with least deleterious effect and consequence. It
has to be held that while dealing with the intervening period
as dies non in terms of Rule 55 of the Rules, the authority
concerned is to remain alive to the fact that the petitioner has
been reinstated. Had there been no such major penalty
imposed on the petitioner, he would have continued in
service. Such absence from service for a period close to four
years is on account of compulsorily retirement of the
petitioner and therefore, the concerned authority must have to
take judicial notice of the same. The period upon such
reinstatement, if it was on account of unauthorized absence, it
would have been well visualized that for such absence, one is
not entitled to pay for having done no work. But, in a case
where someone is dismissed or removed from service or
compulsorily retired but thereafter, reinstated without
exoneration of the charges levelled against him, it is for the
Disciplinary Authority to examine whether any benefits for
the alleged period should be allowed, when he is not at fault.
20. Generally, one is not entitled to salary benefits for the
period of dies non because it signifies a day when no duty is
performed and therefore, the principle of 'no work, no pay' is
invoked. While it may not constitute a break in service for
pension purposes, the dies non period itself does not count
for salary, increments and other benefits. In the context of
employment, it often refers to an unauthorized or willful
absence from duty. A dies non is distinguishable from a
break in service, which does not result in forfeiture of past
service and though, not to receive the pay for that period but
the service record, for the purposes like pension, would
remain be uninterrupted. Of course, an employee is not
automatically allowed salary for the period of absence, if the
removal order is set aside and the period is declared dies non
but it cannot be gainsaid that the final decision rests with the
authority concerned, who has the discretion to consider and
examine on each particular case. While exercising any such
discretion, while declaring the period as dies non, the
conclusion should not be bereft of logic. Why someone kept
out of service for no fault of his should be deprived of the
service benefits for the period declared dies non. Had there
been a correct decision at right point of time instead of an
order of removal or compulsory retirement, the petitioner
would have remained in service enjoying all the benefits
admissible. According to the Court, declaring the intervening
period as dies non upon reinstatement, no doubt, regularizes
the service break but without service benefits in full, it
becomes an exercise with no real justice and the said aspect
has not been taken care of by the Disciplinary Authority in
the case of the petitioner, hence, it needs a consideration
taking into account the mitigating factors with a holistic
approach.
21. The decisions in Vijay Singh Vrs. State of Uttar
Pradesh & others (2012) 5 SCC 242; G.S. Srivastav Vrs.
Union of India & others 2014 (II) OLR 258; Union of
India Vrs. K.D. Pandey & another (2002) 10 SCC 471; and
Najamal Hussain Mehadi Vrs. State of Maharashtra &
others AIR 1996 SC 2691 cited by Ms. Biswal, learned
counsel for the petitioner are gone through but are based on
independent set of facts, hence, are not discussed elaborately.
22. Thus, the conclusion of the Court is summarized herein
below:
(i) legality of the disciplinary action vis-à-vis the
petitioner is unquestionable as no glaring non-
compliance of the provisions of the Act and
Rules are proved and established;
(ii) but, the penalty imposed against him by the
Disciplinary Authority is excessive and hence,
disproportionate again to be substituted;
(iii) regarding the decision on dies non for the
declared period, it needs a revisit additionally for
the competent authority having not assigned any
reasons especially while withholding the service
benefits of the petitioner as it is statutorily
mandated under Rule 55 of the Rules.
23. Accordingly, it is ordered.
24. In the result, the writ petition stands allowed. As a
necessary corollary, the impugned orders as at Annexures-3,
5, 8 and 10 are hereby set aside to the extent indicated above
substituting the penalty with reduction of pay of the petitioner
in the time scale by one stage for a period of one year without
cumulative effect and not adversely affecting his pension, a
penalty in terms of Rule 34(viii) of the Rules with the
direction to the authority concerned to reconsider the benefits
payable to the petitioner for the period declared as dies non
followed by an order preferably within a period of four weeks
from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.
25. Issue certified copy as per rules.
(R.K. Pattanaik)
Judge
Tudu
