Disposed¶25

Sushil Kumar Pradhan v. D.G. and I.G. of Police, Cuttack

Orissa HC9 Dec 2024WP(C)/2926/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Unauthorized absence from duty on medical ground; Medical Board referral policy (Letter No.30541 dt. 12.07.2005; Memo No.39871 dt. 22.07.2005); Constable SOG Odisha Police; departmental punishment of two black marks, withholding of increment, stoppage of payment; Inquiry Officer report 03.03.2016; Appellate Authority confirmation; remand for reconsideration of appeal with hearing and reasoned order within three months; W.P.(C) 2926/2021; Justice B. P. Routray; 09.12.2024.

What did the court decide?

Remand to the Appellate Authority to reconsider the Petitioner's appeal with an opportunity of hearing and disposal by reasoned order in accordance with law within three months of receipt of certified copy of this order; urgent certified copy directed on proper application. ¶25

Sushil Kumar Pradhan Vs D.G. and I.G. of Police, Cuttack — Orissa HC (2024) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶25

Issue for consideration

Whether the disciplinary authorities acted improperly in proceeding against the Petitioner departmentally for unauthorized absence on medical ground without referring him to the Medical Board, contrary to the 2005 Government policy directive. +1 more

¶20

Court's answer

Notwithstanding the Inquiry Officer's rejection of his medical pleas as not genuine, the records do not reveal that the Petitioner was ever referred to the Medical Board for examination; the Appellate Authority completely ignored this aspect of the Petitioner's contention while confirming the punishment.

¶23

Ratio / Principle

The matter is remanded to the Appellate Authority with direction to reconsider the Petitioner's appeal by granting him an opportunity of hearing, and to dispose of it in accordance with law by passing a reasoned order within three months from receipt of certified copy of the order.

¶24

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ petition (W.P.(C) No.2926 of 2021, High Court of Orissa at Cuttack, decided 09.12.2024) by Sushil Kumar Pradhan, formerly Constable, SOG, Odisha Police, against punishment of two black marks with withholding of increment and stoppage of payment for unauthorized absence from duty on medical ground (Annexure-7), with appeal rejected (Annexure-9). Counsel contended that per Government of Odisha Home Department Letter No.30541 dated 12.07.2005, circulated vide Memo No.39871 dated 22.07.2005 of Odisha Police State Headquarters, such cases must be promptly referred to the Medical Board, but the authorities proceeded departmentally without referral. The Inquiry Officer's report dated 03.03.2016 (Annexure-4 series) had rejected the Petitioner's plea of inability to attend duty owing to ailments and treatment as not genuine, yet the records showed no referral to the Medical Board, an aspect the Appellate Authority ignored while confirming the punishment. The single bench of Shri Justice B. P. Routray disposed of the writ petition, remanding the matter to the Appellate Authority to reconsider the appeal after granting the Petitioner an opportunity of hearing and to pass a reasoned order in accordance with law within three months of receipt of certified copy of the order.

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

¶2

W.P.(C) No.2926 of 2021

¶3

Sushil Kumar Pradhan

¶4

…. Petitioner

¶5

Ms. B.K.Pattanaik, Advocate

¶6

-versus-

¶7

D.G. & I.G. of Police, Cuttack & Others

¶8

…. Opposite Parties

¶9

Ms. B.L.Tripathy, ASC

¶10

CORAM:

¶11

SHRI JUSTICE B. P. ROUTRAY

ORDER

09.12.2024

Order No.

The matter is taken up through hybrid mode.

¶17

2 Heard Ms.Pattanaik, learned counsel for the Petitioner and Ms.Tripathy, learned Additional Standing Counsel for the State.

¶18

The Petitioner, who served as Constable, SOG in Odisha Police, challenges the punishment awarded to him in the disciplinary proceeding at Annexrue-7 and consequent rejection of appeal under Annexure-9.

¶19

Ms. Pattanaik, learned counsel for the Petitioner, submits that pursuant to Letter No.30541 dated 12.07.2005 issued by the Government of Odisha in Home Department and circulated vide Memo No.39871 dated 22.07.2005 of Odisha Police State Headquarters, all cases of unauthorized absence from duty on medical ground should be promptly referred to the Medical Board.

¶20

But in the instant case, the Authorities without referring the Petitioner to the Medical Board proceeded against him departmentally

¶21

Page 1 of 2

¶22

to punish him with two black marks along with withholding of increment and stoppage of payment.

¶23

It is seen from the contentions of the Petitioner, as reflected by the Inquiry Officer in his report dated 03.03.2016 (Annexure-4 series), the Petitioner’s plea in defence that he could not attend the duty upon completion of his leave due to different ailments and the treatment undergone by him, was rejected by the Inquiry Officer with the opinion that, all such pleas and the medical documents produced by the Petitioner are not genuine. Nonetheless, the records do not reveal that the Petitioner was ever referred to Medical Board for his examination. The Appellate Authority has completely ignored such aspect of contention of the Petitioner while confirming the award of punishment.

¶24

Accordingly, this court remands back the matter to the Appellate Authority with direction to reconsider the Appeal of the Petitioner by granting him an opportunity of hearing, and dispose of the same in accordance with law by passing a reasoned order, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.

¶25

In the result, the writ petition is disposed of with aforesaid observation and direction.

¶26

Issue urgent certified copy of this order on proper application.

¶27

Signature Not Verified

¶28

Digitally Signed Signed by: HIMANSU SEKHAR DASH Himansu Reason: Authentication Location: OHC Date: 12-Dec-2024 12:15:35

¶29

Page 2 of 2

Sushil Kumar Pradhan v. D.G. and I.G. of Police, Cuttack

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sushil Kumar Pradhan v. D.G. and I.G. of Police, Cuttack

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ganeswar Mallick Vs State of Orissa

Srikanta Garnaik Vs State of Odisha

Rangadhar Samal Vs State of Odisha

Asif Abu Baker Vs Spa, Jeypore and Ors.

Prasan Kumar Parida Vs Orissa State Agriculture and Marketing Board

Laxmidhar Behera Vs Vice Chairman Cuttack Development Authority