[Cites 6, Cited by 0]
Orissa High Court
Subhasree Pattanaik vs Union Of India & Another .... Opp. ... on 15 January, 2026
Author: Chittaranjan Dash
Bench: Chittaranjan Dash
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
W.P.(C) No.20364 of 2021
In the matter of an application under Articles 226 & 227 of
the Constitution of India, 1950.
----
Subhasree Pattanaik .... Petitioner
-versus-
Union of India & another .... Opp. Parties
Advocates Appeared in this case
For Petitioner - M/s.Sidheswar Mallik,
P.C. Das, M.Mallik &
S.Mallick, Advocates
For Opp. Parties - Mr.P.K. Parhi, DSGI
With Mr.S.K.Samantaray, CGC
---
CORAM :
MR. JUSTICE DIXIT KRISHNA SHRIPAD
MR. JUSTICE CHITTARANJAN DASH
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Date of Hearing & Judgment : 15.01.2026
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PER DIXIT KRISHNA SHRIPAD, J.
The Petitioner had secured an order at the hands of
the Central Administrative Tribunal, partly favourable to her in
the sense that reinstatement was ordered with 50% of back
wages. She is knocking at the doors of this Court grieving against
denial of remainder of the back wages that has accrued arguably
in her favour during the period between dismissal dated
28.08.2017 and reinstatement vide impugned order dated
25.06.2021.
2. Learned counsel for the Petitioner vehemently argues that
in the disciplinary proceedings nothing has been recorded as to
the charge of throwing her baby into the canal for causing its
death and the Criminal Court having acquitted her vide order
dated 30.09.2019 in C.T. Case No.03/368 of 2016, she was kept out
of employment for no fault of hers and therefore, the Tribunal is
not justified in not awarding full back wages instead of 50%.
3. Learned CGC, appearing for the Opposite Parties, opposes
the Petition making submission in justification of the impugned
order of the Tribunal and also drawing attention of the Court to
the observations made by the Criminal Court in the subject
criminal case while granting acquittal. He submits that in essence,
"no work no pay" principle becomes invokable in the case and
therefore, the Petition is liable to be negatived.
4. Having heard learned counsel for the Parties and having
perused the Petition papers, this Court is inclined to grant a
limited indulgence in the matter as under and for the following
reasons:
4.1. The first charge of throwing her baby into the canal with
intent to cause its death and to commit suicide has not been
proved against the Petitioner in the disciplinary enquiry. The
Criminal Court in the subject criminal case acquitted the
Petitioner herein. At Paragraph-9 of the acquittal order, it is
observed as under:
'From the evidence of the prosecution, it appears that none of the
witnesses had seen the accused throwing the child to canal and jumped to
canal to commit suicide. The accused pleaded that the child went to the
canal for which she jumped to the canal to save her child. The plea of the
accused appears to be probable when none of the prosecution witnesses
had seen her throwing the child to canal and jumping to the canal to
commit suicide. Offence of murder of Sai Shriya Mohanty and attempt to
commit suicide are not proved by the prosecution. Prosecution has failed
to prove the charge U/s. 302/309 IPC. I hold the accused not guilty
thereunder and acquit her U/s.235(1) Cr.P.C. The accused is set at
liberty forthwith'.
4.2. It is a Jewish proverb that "God could not be everywhere
and therefore, he made mothers". There is absolutely no material
to infer, let alone demonstrate that the Petitioner intended to
commit suicide and as a step in aid she had thrown her baby into
the flowing waters of the canal. No mother would hurt her child.
Adi Shankaracharya in Devi Aparadha Kshamapana Stotram says
"Kuputro Jayet Kwachidapi Kumata Na Bhavati", a bad son may be
born somewhere, but a bad mother never is, literally meaning.
There are decisions, Courts in civilized jurisdictions which hold
that mothers have tremendous instinct to save their children,
come what may. Such a presumption can be drawn under Section
114 of the erstwhile Indian Evidence Act, 1872, regard being had
to the timeline of the case. If that be so, it becomes un-
understandable as to how full back wages could have been denied
by awarding only half.
4.3. The contentions of learned CGC that the principle of "no
work no pay" is invokable in the case at hand, cannot be agreed
to. It is not that some charges were framed against the delinquent
and thereafter the same came to be quashed by the competent
Authority, Court or Tribunal. The disciplinary Authority himself
recorded a finding of no guilt against the Petitioner. But during
the proceedings, she was kept away from employment and, in
that there is no element of fault attributable to her. In such a
circumstance, ordinarily the rule of "no work no pay" is not
invokable. Thus, there is an infirmity in the impugned order of
the Tribunal.
4.4. All the above being said, there is nothing on record to infer
that the Petitioner was in gainful employment. There is not even a
plea taken up by the Opposite Parties as to the gainful
employment. Petitioner has lost her baby in the conspiracy of
circumstances. Putra shokam nirantaram say the Smritikaaras. The
pung of children's death is grievous and eternal. This aspect too is
a relevant consideration. Keeping all the facts & circumstances of
the case, we are of the considered view that 75% of the back
wages instead of 50% could have been awarded to the Petitioner,
by balancing the competing equities.
In the above circumstances, this Petition succeeds in
part. Impugned order of the Central Administrative
Tribunal, although in substance is kept intact, is
marginally varied to the effect that the Petitioner should
be paid 75% of the back wages instead of 50%, within an
outer limit of 8 (eight) weeks, failing which the same shall
carry interest at the rate of 1% per mensem for the first
month, and 2% for the period next following. The interest
component shall be recoverable personally from the
erring officials of the department who cause delay in
implementing this order.
Web copy of judgment to be acted upon by all concerned.
(Dixit Krishna Shripad)
Judge
(Chittaranjan Dash)
Judge
Orissa High Court, Cuttack
The 15th Day of January, 2026/Bijay/Sarbani
Designation: Junior Stenographer
Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACK
Date: 21-Jan-2026 19:58:29
