The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK WP(C) No.11376 of 2025 Sangram Mohanty ..... Petitioner Represented By Adv. - Prince Patnaik -versus- State Of Odisha and others ..... Opposite Parties Smt. S. Nayak, ASC CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADITYA KUMAR MOHAPATRA ORDER 30.04.2025 Order No. 01. 1. 2. This matter is taken up through Hybrid mode. Heard learned counsel for the Petitioner as well as learned counsel for the State-Opposite Parties. Perused the writ application as well as the documents annexed thereto. 3. The Petitioner has filed the present writ application with the following prayer: “Under the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, it is therefore, humbly prayed that this Hon’ble Court may graciously be pleased to allow the present writ petition and issue a writ in the nature of writ of mandamus or any other writ/ writs, order/orders, direction/directions to the Opp Parties to promote the petitioner to the post of Α.Ε.Ε. (Civil) retrospectively from the date his juniors were so promoted vide Annexure-7; Page 1 of 6. And consequently, direct the Opposite Parties to release the consequential financial and service benefits arising out of retrospective promotion in favour of the petitioner, the Or pass such other order/orders or direction/directions as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the bonafide interest of justice;” 4.
Legal Reasoning
Learned counsel for the Petitioner at the outset contended that the Petitioner was initially appointed as Junior Engineer under Berhampur Municipality on 19.01.1996. Thereafter, the Petitioner was transferred as a Junior Engineer to Bhubaneswar Municipal Corporation in January, 2005. While working as such, the Petitioner was implicated in a vigilance case on 09.09.2009. Thereafter, in June, 2012, the Petitioner was transferred as a Junior Engineer to Cuttack Municipal Corporation from the Bhubaneswar Municipal Corporation. Again, during November, 2013, the Petitioner was repatriated back to the Bhubaneswar Municipal Corporation. 5. Learned counsel for the Petitioner further contended that in the meantime a charge-sheet was filed in the vigilance case on 30.03.2013. While this was the position, the Petitioner was promoted to the post of Assistant Engineer from the post of Junior Engineer w.e.f. 01.06.2015. Learned counsel for the Petitioner further contended that a disciplinary proceeding was also initiated against the present Petitioner. The Petitioner faced such disciplinary proceeding and finally, vide order dated 03.07.2017, the disciplinary proceeding terminated with the imposition of minor penalty against Page 2 of 6. the present Petitioner, i.e. the Petitioner was imposed with the penalty of stoppage of one increment without cumulating effect and Censure. In the aforesaid context, learned counsel for the Petitioner submitted that such imposition of minor penalty would not affect Petitioner’s future prospects and promotion to the next higher rank. 6. Learned counsel for the Petitioner further contended that although the vigilance case in which the Petitioner was entangled was initiated in the year 2009, the charge-sheet in the said case was only filed in the year 2013. He further contended that despite a decade’s time having elapsed in the meantime, vigilance proceeding in the said case is still pending and that no further development has taken place in the said proceeding. While this was the position, on 11.01.2024, the provisional gradation list of Assistant Engineer (Civil) was published wherein the name of Petitioner finds place against Sl. No.11. In the meantime a DPC was convened to consider the cases of eligible candidates for promotion to the post of Assistant Executive Engineer (Civil). Accordingly, CCRs and other details were placed before the competent authority for such consideration. Learned counsel for the Petitioner, further at this juncture, contended that though a list of candidates who have been given promotion to the post of Assistant Executive Engineer (Civil) was published, the name of the Petitioner does not find place in the said list. He further submitted that although the Petitioner has approached the Opposite Parties by filing a representation on 10.12.2024, however, no decision has been taken on such representation. 7. In course of hearing, learned counsel for the Petitioner further submitted that since the disciplinary proceeding initiated against the Petitioner has culminated in the imposition of minor penalty, the Page 3 of 6. same will not stand in the way of the Petitioner in getting further promotion to the next higher rank. He further submitted that although the criminal case was initiated in the year 2009, however, the same is still pending after the expiry of one and half decade. In such view of the matter, learned counsel for the Petitioner contended that pendency of such criminal case against the present Petitioner should not stand in the way of the Petitioner in getting further promotion to the post of Assistant Executive Engineer (Civil). 8. Learned counsel for the State on the other hand submitted that the Opposite Parties have not committed any illegality in not considering in the case of the present Petitioner for promotion to the post of Assistant Executive Engineer (Civil). She further contended that admittedly the vigilance case is still pending against the present Petitioner. Therefore, his case has not been considered for promotion to the next higher rank. It was also contended by learned counsel for the Petitioner that as per the established practice the Opposite Parties must have followed the sealed cover procedure while considering the promotion of the Petitioner to the next higher rank along with his batchmates. In view of the aforesaid condition, learned counsel for the State contended that the present writ petition is devoid of merit and accordingly the same should be dismissed. 9. In reply to the contentions raised by learned counsel for the State, learned counsel for the Petitioner contended that although the Opposite Parties were under a legal obligation to follow the sealed cover procedure in the DPCs so far the present Petitioner is concerned, however, such procedure has not been followed in gross violation of the established practice as well as the relevant rules and circulars. He further submitted that during a long pendency in the Page 4 of 6. criminal case where the trial is not progressing, the Petitioner could not be made to suffer. In the aforesaid context, he also submitted that although a charge-sheet has been filed, however the trial has not commenced as of now. In such background, learned counsel for the Petitioner submitted that the Opposite Parties should have given promotion to the Petitioner subject to any terms and conditions as may be imposed by the appointing authority. 10. Having heard the learned counsels appearing for the respective
Decision
parties, on a careful examination of the pleadings in the writ petition as well as document annexed thereto, further on a careful analysis of the legal provision, this Court is of the view that the criminal case in which the Petitioner has been implicated was initiated in the year 2009. Although a charge-sheet has been filed in the year 2013, however, it does not appear that the trial has progressed substantially in the meantime. Taking into consideration the aforesaid facts, this Court is of the view that the Opposite Parties while convening the DPC were also required to follow the sealed cover procedure while considering the eligible candidates for promotion to the next higher rank. Having not done that, the Opposite Parties have definitely committed an illegality. Keeping in view the peculiar facts and circumstances in the present case, this Court further observes that during the pendency of the criminal case the Petitioner was given promotion in the year 2015 to the post of Assistant Engineer from the post of Junior Engineer. Taking into consideration the aforesaid fact, this Court is of the considered view that the Opposite Parties should have considered the case of the Petitioner for adhoc promotion to the post of Assistant Executive Engineer (Civil) along with his batchmates and juniors. Accordingly, the present writ petition is Page 5 of 6. disposed of by directing the Opposite Parties to consider the case of the Petitioner for promotion to the post of Assistant Executive Engineer (Civil) subject to the Petitioner fulfilling all other eligibility criteria on adhoc basis by convening a review DPC. Further, it is directed that in the event the Petitioner is given any such adhoc promotion, then such adhoc promotion shall be subject to the outcome to the criminal trial and an undertaking to that effect shall be given by the Petitioner before the authorities. Further, it is made clear that the Petitioner shall not claim any equity merely on the basis of such adhoc promotion and no vested right shall accrue on the Petitioner to the higher posts to which the Petitioner is to be promoted on adhoc basis merely on the basis of the fact that he had been given promotion during pendency of such criminal case. 11. With the aforesaid observations/directions, the writ application stands disposed of. Issue urgent certified copy of this order as per Rules. S.K. Rout ( Aditya Kumar Mohapatra ) Judge Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: SANTANU KUMAR ROUT Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Date: 02-May-2025 18:54:31 Page 6 of 6.