[Cites 0, Cited by 0]
Orissa High Court
Santosh Kumar Sahu vs D.G. & I.G. Of Police on 4 February, 2026
Author: K.R. Mohapatra
Bench: K.R. Mohapatra
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
W.A. No. 683 OF 2023
(An application under Clause-10 of letters patent readwith Order-II(1) of
Chapter-8 of Orissa High Court Rules, 1948)
*****
Santosh Kumar Sahu ...... Appellant
-Versus-
1. D.G. & I.G. of Police, Police Head Quarters, Buxi Bazar,
Cuttack
2. I.G. of Police, SAP, Odisha, Bhubaneswar,
Dist-Khurda
3. Commandant OSAP, 3rd Bn. Koraput, At.P.O-Koraput,
Dist-Koraput.
...... Respondents
Advocates appeared:
For Appellant : Mr. Manoja Kumar Khuntia, Advocate
For Respondents : Mr. Bibekananda Nayak,
Additional Government Advocate
CORAM :
MR. JUSTICE K.R. MOHAPATRA
MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR MISHRA
----------------------------------------------------
Heard and disposed of on 04.02.2026
----------------------------------------------------
JUDGMENT
By the Bench;
1. This matter is taken up through hybrid mode.
W.A. No. 683 OF 2023
2. This writ appeal has been filed for assailing the order
dated 28.02.2023 passed by this Court in WP(C) (OA) No.1536
of 2019 under Annexure-1. The Appellant also prays for
quashing the departmental proceeding dated 11.06.2015 and
punishment order dated 28.07.2018, under Annexures-6 & 11
respectively, to the writ petition. The appellant also prays for
consequential reliefs.
3. Mr. Khuntia, learned counsel submits that the appellant,
while working as a Sepoy in 3rd Battalion, Koraput, applied for
leave from 03.02.2015 to 11.02.2015 due to his illness.
However, he overstayed the sanctioned leave and therefore, he
again applied for 15 days' leave from 12.02.2015 on health
grounds. The leave was not extended and the appellant was
instructed to report for duty by 07.03.2015 by the Commandant,
OASP, 3rd Battalion, Koraput vide his order dated 25.02.2015.
But due to his illness, the appellant could not join in his service.
However, after recovery, the appellant submitted a
representation on 15.07.2015. But without accepting the same, a
disciplinary proceeding was initiated. In the said departmental
proceeding, the appellant was imposed with the punishment of
removal from service, and the period of absence from
12.02.2015 to 18.05.2016 (total 462 days) was treated as "No
Pay" vide order dated 18.05.2016 of the disciplinary authority
namely Commandant, OASP, 3rd Battalion, Koraput.
W.A. No.683 OF 2023
4. Being aggrieved, the appellant filed an appeal under the
provisions of the Odisha Police Manual (PMR). The Appellate
Authority, on consideration of his appeal, reduced the
punishment from removal from service to three black marks, and
the period from 19.05.2016 (A.M.), i.e., the date of removal
from service, till the date of joining after receiving the order was
treated as "No Work No Pay". Being aggrieved, the appellant
preferred OA No.1536 of 2019 before the Odisha Administrative
Tribunal, Bhubaneswar. On abolition of the Odisha
Administrative Tribunal, the OA was transferred to this Court
and was registered as WP(C) (OA) No.1536 of 2019. This
Court, vide order dated 28.02.2023, modified the order of
punishment and directed as under:-
"10. Since the proceeding in question was
initiated on the ground of unauthorized absence, it
is the view of this Court that it does not amount to
moral turpitude. Therefore, in view of the provision
while modifying the order of removal, could not
have imposed three (3) black marks. Therefore,
while interfering with that part of the order only,
the impugned order at Annexure-11 is modified to
the extent that the Petitioner will be awarded with
one black mark and the period of removal from
service till his joining having been treated as "no
work no pay", will remain as it is."
5. Mr. Khuntia, learned counsel for the appellant submits
that in view of the provision under PMR 834 (a), Odisha Police
Manual, a black mark can be awarded only when the offence
involves moral turpitude. Learned Single Judge in the
W.A. No.683 OF 2023
concluding paragraph of the impugned order (quoted supra) held
that the charge of unauthorized absence does not amount to
moral turpitude. He, therefore, submits that the imposition of the
punishment of one black mark, as directed by this Court, is
illegal and should be modified. He further submits that after
order of dismissal was passed by the disciplinary authority, the
appellant could not have joined in his service until the appellate
authority modified the order of punishment of dismissal by
reducing the same. Thus, the order of the appellate authority that
"the period of removal" from service from 19.05.2016 (A.M.) till
the date of joining after receiving his order treated as "No Work
No Pay" is illegal. He should have been paid his salary for the
said period, as he had no contribution for not joining the service
w.e.f. 19.05.2016, the same being the date of imposition of the
punishment of dismissal, till it was modified vide order dated
28.07.2018.
6. Mr. Nayak, learned Additional Government Advocate
appearing for the State-Respondents, on the other hand, submits
that Rule PMR 834(a) of Odisha Police Manual stipulates as
under;-
"834.(a) Imposition of black marks:- Black
marks may be awarded alone or in addition to
other punishments enumerated in Rule 824 except
dismissal or removal, to all officers of and below
the rank of Inspector.
No more than one black mark shall be
awarded or any one offence except when moral
turpitude can reasonably be inferred."
W.A. No.683 OF 2023
7. It provides that not more than one black mark shall be
awarded for any one offence except, when moral turpitude can
reasonably be inferred. Thus, only when a moral turpitude is
reasonably inferred by the disciplinary authority, more than one
black mark can be awarded either alone or along with other
punishments. Otherwise, a single black mark may be imposed at
the discretion of the disciplinary authority. Since in the instant
case, the learned Single Judge has categorically observed that a
case of moral turpitude is not made out, the imposition of one
black mark is justified taking into consideration the facts and
circumstances of the case. He, therefore, submits that the writ
appeal, being devoid of any merit, should be dismissed.
8. Taking into consideration the submissions made by
learned counsel for the parties, and on perusal of the materials
on record along with the relevant provision under PMR 834 (a)
of the Odisha Police Manual, we are of the considered opinion
that only when the disciplinary authority reasonably infers that
an offence committed by the delinquent involves moral
turpitude, then more than one black mark can be awarded. Thus,
for imposition of punishment of one black mark, such restriction
does not apply as rightly submitted by Mr. Nayak, learned
Additional Government Advocate. In no case, where moral
turpitude is not made out, three black marks could have been
imposed, as imposed by the Appellate Authority. Thus, learned
Single Judge has committed no error in imposing a punishment
W.A. No.683 OF 2023
of one black mark. However, the appellant has no contribution
for not joining the service after the order of dismissal that is
from 19.05.2016, till the order of punishment modified by the
appellate authority, i.e., on 28.07.2018.
9. Mr. Khuntia, learned counsel for the appellant placed
reliance on a coordinate Bench of this Court, i.e., order dated
11.04.2019 in WP(C) No.19673 of 2010 (Shri Sanatan
Mahananda Vrs. State of Orissa and others), wherein, the
Bench has observed as under:-
"He further contended that it is a double
jeopardy when the increment of the petitioner
has been withheld for one year equivalent to
the value of "2 Black Marks" at the same time
his unauthorized absence for the period from
22.04.2001 to 15.05.2001 was directed to be
treated as "No Pay".
In our considered opinion, the submission of
learned counsel for the petitioner is required to
be accepted. the second penalty of
unauthorized absence for the period from
22.04.2001 to 15.05.2001 to be treated as "No
Pay" is required to be quashed and the same is
quashed."
10. We, therefore, modify the order of learned Single Judge
to the extent that the appellant shall be entitled to notional
financial benefits from 19.05.2016 (A.M.) till the date of joining
after receiving the order of the appellate authority.
W.A. No.683 OF 2023
11. With the aforesaid modification in the order passed in the
writ petition, the writ appeal is disposed of. In the facts and
circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs.
Urgent certified copy shall be granted as per Rules.
(K.R. Mohapatra)
Judge
(S.K. Mishra)
Judge
Orissa High Court, Cuttack,
Dated 04th February, 2026/Mona
Reason: AuthenticationW.A. No.683 OF 2023
Date: 06-Feb-2026 18:43:17
