JUDGMENT : Biswanath Rath, J. - This writ petition involves a challenge to the order dated 30.03.2002 imposing penal rent for the period from 17.09.2001 to 16.02.2002 and market rent for the period from 17.02.2002 to 31.05.2002. 2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner assailing the impugned order submitted that based on initiation of a Disciplinary Proceeding the petitioner was directed to vacate the quarter within 24 hours vide Annexure-1. Finding "16.09.2001" was a 'Sunday' the petitioner requested the Commandant to allow him some time on the grounds stated therein. In the meantime the petitioner preferred O.J.C. No.3077 of 2002 before this Court challenging the illegal order of eviction and this Court while disposing the said writ petition, directed the petitioner to handover the quarter to the concerned authority on 01.06.2002. It is under the premises that the petitioner was permitted by this Court in disposal of the aforesaid writ petition to occupy the quarter till the end of May, 2002 and to handover the same to the concerned authority on 01.06.2002. Shri Mohanty, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contended that the impugned order imposing penal rent from 17.09.2001 to 16.02.2002 and market rent from 17.02.2002 to 31.05.2002 is improper and illegal. Further, taking this Court to the conclusion of the Disciplinary proceeding involving the petitioner ended with an order of reduction in the punishment in modification of the order of dismissal, Shri Mohanty, learned counsel for the petitioner challenging the legality of the imposition of penal rent and market rent submitted that the order becomes illegal. It is under the circumstances, Shri Mohanty, learned counsel opposed the action of the competent authority in the matter of demand of penal rent as well as market rent involving the petitioner. 3. Shri Dayanidhi Lenka, learned counsel appearing for the opposite parties on the other hand submitted that the modified order of punishment being passed subsequent to the impugned action involved herein, same has nothing to do with the demands made and looking to the factual scenario at the relevant point of time, the learned counsel for the opposite parties claimed that the demand remained justified leaving no scope for this Court to interfere with the same. 4. 4. Considering the rival contentions of the parties, this Court finds, in a writ petition involving W.P.(C) No.10896 of 2004, this Court by judgment dated 02.01.2018 in final disposal of the W.P.(C) No.10896 of 2004 while observing that the modified order of punishment involving the petitioner remained justified under the circumstances stated therein, dismissed the writ petition affirming the order of reduction in the punishment, it, therefore, becomes clear that there is no dismissal of the service of the petitioner from services while working as Constable in the eye of law. It is under the circumstances and taking into consideration of the permission of this Court in disposal of O.J.C. No.3077 of 2002 disposed of on 15.03.2002 permitting the petitioner to retain the quarter at Angul till the end of May, 2002 considering that the period of charge of penalty as well as market rent involved herein come in between, this Court finds, the impugned order imposing penal rent as well as market rent is bad in law. But, however, considering that the petitioner is entitled for a quarter for his reinstatement in service for the period involved in the impugned order vide Annexure-5, the petitioner will be required to pay rent as admissible at the relevant point of time. 5. The writ petition stands allowed, but however to the extent the observations indicated hereinabove. No costs.