Where only censure is imposed, the suspension period must be treated as duty, not suspension or leave.

The petitioner faced departmental proceedings initiated by memorandum dated 17 October 2006 and participated in the inquiry by filing his written statement of defence.

By order dated 12 December 2011, he was imposed the minor penalty of censure, and the period of his suspension was treated as leave due and admissible.

The petitioner challenged the order before the Odisha Administrative Tribunal in O.A. No. 600(C) of 2013, but the application was dismissed on 25 August 2016.

In W.P.(C) No. 20827 of 2016, the High Court remitted the matter to the disciplinary authority for passing a fresh order regarding treatment of the suspension period in accordance with Rule 12(6) of the Odisha Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1962.

Pursuant to the remand, the petitioner was issued a show-cause notice dated 28 March 2017 proposing to treat the suspension period as suspension, and by order dated 24 November 2021, the disciplinary authority treated the period as such.

The petitioner challenged that order, contending that, since only the minor penalty of censure had been imposed, the suspension period could neither be treated as leave nor continued as “suspension as such,” and ought to be treated as duty.

1. Whether the disciplinary authority could treat the petitioner’s period of suspension as “suspension as such” after imposing only the minor penalty of censure.

2. Whether, in view of Rule 12(6) of the Odisha Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1962 and the precedents relied upon, the suspension period was required to be treated as duty for all purposes with consequential financial and pensionary benefits.

Rule 12(6) of the Odisha Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1962 requires the disciplinary authority, while passing the final order in disciplinary proceedings, to give directions regarding treatment of a period of suspension imposed pending inquiry and to indicate whether the suspension is to operate as a punishment.

Rule 13 recognises censure as a minor penalty.

In Banibhusan Dash v. State of Odisha & Others, W.P.(C) No. 7635 of 2019, the Court held that, where only a minor penalty is imposed, the authority should not ordinarily treat the suspension period as leave due and admissible or otherwise adversely affect the employee’s service conditions; where suspension was not ultimately justified by the punishment imposed, the period should be treated as duty.

The same principle was followed in Dr. Smita Mohanty, where a suspension period was directed to be treated as duty after imposition of a minor penalty.

The Court held that the petitioner had ultimately been punished only with censure, a minor penalty under Rule 13.

Although the earlier judgment authorised the disciplinary authority to reconsider the treatment of the suspension period under Rule 12(6), that provision did not validate an order that adversely treated the suspension period where the disciplinary proceeding resulted only in a minor penalty.

Applying the principles in Banibhusan Dash and Dr. Smita Mohanty, the Court reasoned that the imposition of censure did not justify treating the period as leave or continuing it as suspension “as such.”

The impugned order therefore adversely affected the petitioner’s service and pensionary entitlements without sufficient legal basis.

It directed Opposite Party No. 1 to treat the entire suspension period as duty for all purposes and to extend the financial benefits due and admissible, including revised pension, if applicable.

The authorities were directed to complete the exercise within three months from receipt of the judgment.

The writ petition was accordingly disposed of.