Biraja Prasanna Satapathy, J
1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual/Physical) Mode.
2. Heard learned counsel appearing for the Parties.
3. Petitioner has filed the present Writ Petition inter alia with the following prayer:-
“i) quash impugned order in Annexure-9 by holding the same as not only bad and illegal but also violative of provisions of OCS (CCA) Rules, 1962, Odisha
Leave Rules and the settled principles of law; and thereby;
ii) direct Ops to treat the period of suspension of the Petitioner from 10.04.2003 to 29.04.2005 as period spent as duty for all purposes and to release entire
unpaid arrear salary of the petitioner for the period of suspension from 10.04.2003 to 29.04.2005 with all consequential service and monetary benefitsâ€.
4. It is contended that Petitioner earlier had approached this Court in WPC(OA) No.3286 of 2000, wherein challenge was made to the proposed
termination.
4.1. It is contended that since during subsistence of the interim order, Petitioner attained the age of superannuation and was also allowed to retire, this
Court while disposing the matter vide order dtd.17.05.2022 has held as follows:-
“8. Since the Petitioner has been acquitted in the vigilance case and the said order having attained finality in the eye of law, the orders under challenge in the
present writ petition has lost its force. Accordingly, this Court is inclined to quash the order under Annexures-5 & 7. Accordingly, while quashing the same, this
Court directs Opp. Parties to extend all service and financial benefits as due and admissible in favour of the petitioner. It is directed that the entire exercise be
completed within a period of four months from the date of receipt of the orderâ€.
4.2. It is contended that in view of the nature of order passed by this Court on 17.05.2022 the period of suspension should have been treated as duty
for all purposes. But instead of doing that the period of suspension has been treated as leave due and admissible vide the impugned communication
issued on 23.05.2023 under Annexure-9 and that too without following the provisions contained under Rule-12(6) of OCS (CC&A) Rules, 1962 and
Rule-91(4) & (5) of Odisha Service Code. It is accordingly contended that the period of suspension so treated as leave due and admissible is not
sustainable in the eye of law.
5. Learned Addl. Government Advocate on the other hand contended that since the proposed termination issued in favour of the Petitioner was stayed
by the Tribunal and during subsistence of the said order, Petitioner was allowed to retire, this Court while quashing the orders so issued proposing
termination disposed of the writ petition by holding that Petitioner is entitled to get all service and financial benefits. But since the Petitioner admittedly
remained under suspension for the period from 10.04.2003 to 29.04.2005, unless the said period is regularized, Petitioner cannot be extended with the
pension and other pensionary benefits.
5.1. It is accordingly contented that in order to regularize the said period, Opposite Party No.1 treated the same as leave due and admissible vide
Annexure-9.
6. Having heard learned counsel appearing for the Parties and considering the nature of order passed by this Court on 17.05.2022 in WPC(OA)
No.3286 of 2000, this Court is of the view that the period of suspension is required to be regularized in accordance with law and by giving an
opportunity of hearing to the Petitioner.
7. Therefore, this Court while disposing the Writ Petition directs Opposite Party No.1 to take a fresh decision with regard to regularization of the
period of suspension from 10.04.2003 to 29.04.2005 in accordance with law and by giving a personal hearing to the Petitioner. Such a fresh decision
be taken within a period of two (2) months from the date of receipt of this order. Consequentially Annexure-9 is quashed.
8. Accordingly, the Writ Petition stands disposed of.
..……………………………..
