[Cites 0, Cited by 0]
Orissa High Court
Sachindra Kumar Pruseth vs State Of Odisha & Ors. ..... Opposite ... on 10 February, 2026
Author: Biraja Prasanna Satapathy
Bench: Biraja Prasanna Satapathy
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
WP(C) No. 498 of 2023
Sachindra Kumar Pruseth ..... Petitioner
Mr. M. Padhi, Advocate
-versus-
State of Odisha & Ors. ..... Opposite Parties
Mr. C.K. Pradhan, AGA
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY
ORDER
10.02.2026
1. This matter is taken up through hybrid mode.
2. Heard Mr. M. Padhi, learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner
and Mr. C.K. Pradhan, learned Addl. Govt. Advocate appearing for
the Opp. Parties.
3. The present writ petition has been filed inter alia challenging the
order of punishment passed by the disciplinary authority-Opp. Party
No. 4 under Annexure-5 in Sambalpur District Proceeding No. 925
dtd.02.06.2017 and confirmation of the same by the appellate
authority-Opp. Party No. 3 vide order dtd.16.04.2018 under
Annexure-7.
4. Learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner contended that in the
proceeding initiated vide Annexure-2 Petitioner not only filed his
explanation but also participated in the enquiry. The enquiry officer
after conducting the enquiry, submitted the report under Annexure-5
with the following finding:-
"By analysing above mentioned Charge, Memo of Evidence,
connected documents and statements of all P.Ws., it is evident and
well proved that,
Charged Sepoy Sachindra Kumar Pruseth was appointed in
OSAP (S.S)1 Bn. Sambalpur on 23.12.2006 F.N. and allotted
Brass No.419 of this Battalion vide B.O. No.2 Dt. 23.12 2006 at
SL. No.419 (Exhibit No.1) as per P.W.-I R.O, I/C Dy. Subedar
Bhakta Bandhu Seth, OSAP (S.S) 1 Bn. Sambalpur.
He was deployed at Lathor P.S. duty post Dist-Bolangir along
with one Platoon of OSAP (S.S) 1 Bn. Sambalpur to perform
L.W.E. duty, on 17.11.2015 P.W.-II Dy. Subedar Subash Kujur,
Platoon, I/C submitted a report against S/419 Sachindra Kumar
Pruseth (Exhibit No.2) mentioning that, he was leaving the camp
without informing the Platoon Commander and refused to give
explanation, involving with outsiders, consuming alcohol, opium
and rebuking N.C.O and Sepoys and causing indiscipline in the
platoon. He always complained against the food served in mess,
argued with mess manager and demanded cash back.
However, S/419 Sachindra Kumar Pruseth in his Written
Defence stated that, he is working as Sepoy in OSAP (SS) 1st Bn.
Sambalpur, Padhanpali, he was deployed at Lathor post for 70/80
days, but he was not been issued with the personal Arms and
Ammunition, all the platoon personnel were given facility but he
was detailed for mess fatigue duty every day and was not relieved
though other platoon personnel who were detailed for mess
fatigue duly were being relieved, he was working as Driver in
M.V. Section of Sambalpur District, inspite of knowing that, he is
neglected. He has also stated that, he is a Sepoy, then why he was
allowed for the driving test and given 4 months training and also
passed the A.D Board at Cuttack. When applying willingness for
A.D. Board, his application is not been sent to Cuttack, for which
he is mentally depressed. When applying willingness for A.D
Board, his application is not been sent to Cuttack. So. he is
mentally depressed, always quarrelling and will die. But as
regard issue of personal arms and ammunition and for mess
fatique duty to charged S/419 Sachindra Kumar Pruseth, it was
discretion of Platoon Commander for safety, security and smooth
management of the Platoon and camp. Further, as regard driving
duty, the matter is not concerned with the Charge and at present
Asst. Drivers have been posted to this Battalion for driving the
vehicles and his service is not required for driving the vehicles.
S/419 Sachindra Kumar Pruseth was put up in Orderly Room
for his indiscipline conduct on 8.12.15 for creating indiscipline
in the Platoon in sensitive duty Post which amounts to gross
misconduct and he was placed under suspension w.e.f.8.12.15
AM vide BO No. 1774 Dt 8 12.15 (Exhibit No 3) as per PW.IRO
I/C Dy Subedar Bhakta Bandhu Seth, OSAP (S.S) 1 Bn.
Sambalpur.
Hence, during the course of enquiry No. 17/2016 dt.19.8.16
charge framed against S/419 Sachindra Kumar Pruseth of OSAP
(SS) 1st Bn. Sambalpur for his indiscipline conduct and gross
misconduct, it is pertinent that, S/419 Sachindra Kumar Pruseth
was deployed at Lathor P.S. duty post Dist-Bolangir along with
one Platoon of OSAP (S.S) Bn. Sambalpur to perform L.W.E.
duty, who was leaving the camp without informing the Platoon
Commander and refused to give explanation, involving with
outsiders, consuming alcohol, opium and rebuking N.C.O and
Sepoys and causing indiscipline in the platoon. I always
complained against the food served in mess, argued with mess
manager a demanding cash back and for such indiscipline
conduct, he was put up in Orderly Room 8.12.15 for creating
indiscipline in the Platoon in sensitive duty Post and he was place
under suspension w.e.f.8.12.15 A.M. vide B.O. No. 1774
Dt.8.12.15 are proved."
4.1. It is contended that basing on the enquiry report and after
issuance of the 1st sow-cause, Petitioner was imposed with the
punishment of two black marks by the disciplinary authority-Opp.
Party No. 4 vide order under Annexure-6 and while imposing such a
punishment of two black marks, the period of suspension
i.e.08.12.2015 to 16.02.2016 was treated as such.
4.2. Learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner contended that since
while imposing the punishment of two (2) black marks, the period of
suspension was treated as such and no such punishment is prescribed
to treat the period of suspension as such in PMR 824, such a
punishment to treat the period of suspension as such could not have
been made while imposing the punishment of two black marks.
4.3. It is also contended that challenging such order of punishment,
Petitioner though moved the appellate authority, but the appellate
authority without proper appreciation of the grounds of appeal,
rejected the same vide order dtd.16.04.2018 under Annexure-7. It is
contended that since no such punishment to treat the period of
suspension as such is prescribed under PMR 824, such a punishment
could not have been imposed. In support of his submission, reliance
was placed to a decision of this Court in the case of Premraj Padhan
Vs. D.G.P. And I.G.P., Odisha & Ors. (W.P.C.(OAC) No. 150 of
2018) . This Court in Para 6.1 of the order has held as follows:-
"6.1. Since no such punishment to treat the period of
suspension as such is prescribed under PMR-824, this Court
is of the view that no such punishment could have been
imposed while imposing the other punishment. Therefore,
this Court is inclined to quash the order so far as it relates to
treating the period of suspension as such. While quashing the
same, this Court directs Opp. Party No. 3 to treat the said
period as leave due and admissible and extend the benefit
accordingly. This Court directs Opp. Party No. 3 to complete
the entire exercise within a period of three (3) months from
the date of receipt of this order."
5. Mr. C.K. Pradhan, learned AGA on the other hand while supporting
the impugned order of punishment, contended that taking into account
the charges made, Petitioner has been rightly imposed with the
punishment of two (2) black marks and since pending initiation of the
proceeding Petitioner remained under suspension for the period from
08.12.2015 to 16.12.2016, the said period has been treated as such for
the purpose of regularization of his services. It is accordingly
contended that no illegality or irregularity can be found with the
impugned order so passed under Annexure-6 further confirmed vide
order under Annexure-7.
6. Having heard learned counsel appearing for the Parties and
considering the submission made, this Court finds that in the
proceeding initiated against the Petitioner under Annexure-2,
Petitioner was imposed with a punishment of two black marks and
period of suspension was treated as such by the disciplinary authority-
Opp. Party No. 4 vide order dtd.02.06.2017 under Annexure-6. The
appellate authority-Opp. Party No. 3 has confirmed the said order
vide order dtd.16.04.2018 under Annexure-7.
6.1. Placing reliance on the provisions contained under PMR 824 and
the decision as cited (supra), it is the view of this Court that since no
such punishment is prescribed under PMR 824 to treat the period of
suspension as such, this Court while not inclined to interfere with the
punishment of two black marks is concerned, while interfering with
the other punishment, directs Opp. Party No. 4 to treat the period of
suspension as leave due and admissible instead of treating the period
of suspension as such. This Court directs Opp. Party No. 4 to pass a
fresh order by treating the period of suspension as leave due and
admissible and such a fresh order be passed within a period of two (2)
months from the date of receipt of this order. Consequential follow
up action be taken after such regularization of the period of
suspension.
7. The writ petition accordingly stands disposed of.
(BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY)
Judge
Sneha
Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack
