The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C) No. 12983 of 2022 In the matter of an application under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India. ……………… Choudhury Satyabrata Mohanty …. Petitioner -versus- State of Odisha & Ors. …. Opposite Parties For Petitioner : Mr. S.K. Das, Advocate For Opp. Parties :
Legal Reasoning
Mr. S.P. Das, Addl. Standing Counsel PRESENT: THE HON’BLE JUSTICE BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Date of Hearing: 07.11.2025 & Date of Judgment: 07.11.2025 --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Biraja Prasanna Satapathy, J. 1. This matter is taken up through hybrid mode. 2. Heard Mr. S.K. Das, learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner and Mr. S.P. Das, learned Addl. Standing Counsel appearing for the Opp. Parties. // 2 // 3. The present writ petition has been filed inter alia challenging Notification dtd.17.05.2022 so issued under Annexure-7 by opp. Party No. 1. In terms of the said order, benefit of promotion extended in favour of the Petitioner vide order dtd.30.04.2022 under Annexure-3 was cancelled without assigning any reason ad without following the principle of natural justice. 4. It is contended that Petitioner while continuing as an Asst. Engineer (Civil), vide notification dtd.30.04.2022 under Annexure-3, he was extended with the benefit of promotion to the rank of Asst. Executive Engineer (Civil) in Level 12. In the said notification name of the Petitioner finds place at Sl. No. 37. 4.1. It is also contended that pursuant to the said order Petitioner joined in his promotional post on 06.05.2022 vide Annexure-6 and the same was duly accepted by the concerned authority. However, while so continuing in his promotional post, benefit of order dtd.30.04.2022 under Annexure-3 was cancelled vide impugned notification dtd.17.05.2022 under Annexure-7. 4.2. It is contended that since no reason was given for such cancellation and prior to such cancellation Petitioner was never given Page 2 of 9 // 3 // an opportunity of hearing, cancellation of the benefit vide the impugned order is not sustainable in the eye of law. 4.3. In support of his aforesaid submission, learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner on the ground of no reason has been assigned, relied on the decisions in the case of 2013 (Supp.1) OLR-736 and 2012(1) OLR-87. 4.4. This Court in Para-8 & 10 of the said judgment reported in 2012(1) OLR-87 has held as follows:- “8. Admittedly, the aforesaid order does not contain any reason for rejecting of the bid and cancellation of the tender. Law is no more res integra that an authority must pass a reasoned order indicating the material on which its conclusion are based. xxx xxx xxx 10. Reason is the heartbeat of every conclusion. It introduces clarity in an order and without the same it becomes lifeless. [See Raj Kishore Jha v. State of Bihar (2003) 11 SCC 510]”. 4.5. This Court in Para-13 of the said judgment reported in 2013 (Supp.1) OLR-736 has held as follows:- “13. After giving our anxius hearing to the matter and keeping in mind the position of law and the CCA Rules, we are constrained to hold that the learned Tribunal failed to exercise its jurisdiction in the matter. The impugned order of the Tribunal smacks of application of judicial mind and conscience. It is to be remembered that the reasons are the soul of orders. to dual Non-recording of reasons could infirmities; firstly, it may cause prejudice to the lead Page 3 of 9 // 4 // affected party and secondly, more particularly, hamper the proper administration of justice. The orders of the Court must reflect what weighed with the Court in granting or declining the Petitioner”. the relief claimed by 4.6. Similarly, on the ground of principle of natural justice, learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner relied on the decision in the case of State Bank of India And Others Vs. Rajesh Agarwal & Ors., (2023) 6 SCC 1. 4.7. Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Rajesh Agarwal in Para 41 & 42 has held as follows:- “41. In State of Orissa v. Binapani Dei [State of Orissa v. Binapani Dei, AIR 1967 SC 1269], a two-Judge Bench of this Court held that every authority which has the power to take punitive or damaging action has a duty to give a reasonable opportunity to be heard. This Court further held that an administrative action which involves civil consequences must be made consistent with the rules of natural justice : (AIR p. 1271, para 9) “9. … The rule that a party to whose prejudice an order is intended to be passed is entitled to a hearing applies alike to judicial tribunals and bodies of persons invested with authority to adjudicate upon matters involving civil consequences. It is one of the fundamental rules of our constitutional set-up that every citizen is protected against exercise of arbitrary authority by the State or its officers. Duty to act judicially would therefore arise from the very nature of the function intended to be performed : it need not be shown to be super-added. If there is power to decide and determine to Page 4 of 9 // 5 // the prejudice of a person, duty to act judicially is implicit in the exercise of such power. If the essentials of justice be ignored and an order to the prejudice of a person is made, the order is a nullity. That is a basic concept of the rule of law and importance thereof transcends the significance of a decision in any particular case.” 42. In Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India [Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India, (1978) 1 SCC 248] , a seven- Judge Bench of this Court held that any person prejudicially affected by a decision of the authority entailing civil consequences must be given an opportunity of being heard. This has been reiterated in a catena of decisions of this Court.” 5. It is also contended that Petitioner in the meantime has retired from his service on attaining the age of superannuation on 31.03.2024 while continuing in the promotional post in terms of the interim order passed by this Court on 19.05.2022. It is further contended that Petitioner has been extended with the benefit of provisional pension. 6. Mr. S.P. Das, learned Addl. Standing Counsel on the other hand made his submission basing on the stand taken in the counter affidavit so filed by Opp. Party No. 1. It is contended that since by the time Petitioner was extended with the benefit of promotion, the vigilance case was pending against him and he has been charge-sheeted on 30.08.2011 with cognizance being taken on 17.07.2012 and charge being framed on 09.07.2017, the same when came to the knowledge of Page 5 of 9 // 6 // the concerned authority, the benefit extended in favour of the Petitioner vide notification dtd.30.04.2022 under Annexure-3 was cancelled vide the impugned notification dtd.17.05.2022 under Annexure-7. 6.1. It is contended that since by the time Petitioner got the benefit of promotion vide order under Annexure-3, a vigilance proceeding was not only pending against him but also charge was framed, the benefit was rightly cancelled vide the impugned order. Stand taken in Para 6 of the counter affidavit reads as follows:- “That in reply to the averment made in Para-1 of the Writ Petition, it is humbly submitted that, the order dated 17.05.2022 as at Annexure-7 has been issued rightly and validly after finding the fact of pendency of one vigilance case in BBSR Vigilance P.S. case No.07 of 2007 against the petitioner who was promoted inadvertently to the rank of AEE(Civil) vide Department of Water Resources Notification No. 10621 dated 30.04.2022. The said vigilance case is sub judice till date wherein Charge sheet No.33 dated 30.08.2011 was submitted, Cognizance was framed on taken on 17.07.2012 and Charge was 09.07.2017. Since, the to petitioner was not in accordance with the rules or law governing the field of promotion and was on ad hoc basis for a period of one year with effect from 30.04.2022 i.e. date of issue of the promotion order, the same was the pendency of aforesaid withdrawn after vigilance case. The provisions of the OCS(CC&A) Rules, 1962has no relevancy in the instant case as the promotion the rules/law given the Petitioner was against the promotion extended finding to Page 6 of 9 // 7 // governing the field of promotion and hence, the same was withdrawn under the orders of the Government.” 7. To the submission made by the learned Addl. Standing Counsel, learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner made further submission contending inter alia that the ground taken in the counter affidavit since was not the ground when the impugned cancellation was made vide notification dtd.17.05.2022, in view of the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Mohinder Singh Gill & Anr. vs Chief Election Commissioner, reported in 1978 AIR 851, the same is not permissible and no such ground can be taken which was not there in the impugned notification. Hon’ble Apex Court in Para 8 of the Judgment in the case of M.S. Gill as cited (Supra) has held as follows:- “8. The second equally relevant matter is that when a statutory functionary makes an order based on certain grounds, its validity must be judged by the reasons so mentioned and cannot be supplemented by fresh reasons in the shape of affidavit or otherwise. Otherwise, an order bad in the beginning may, by the time it comes to court on account of a challenge, get validated by additional grounds later brought out. We may here draw attention the observations of Bose J. in Gordhandas Bhanji (AIR 1952 SC 16 (at p.18): to "Public orders, publicly made, in exercise of a statutory authority cannot be construed in the light of explanations subsequently given by the officer making the order of what he meant, or of what was in his mind, or what he intended to, do. Public orders made by public authorities are meant to have public effect and are intended to effect the actings and conduct of those to they are addressed and must be construed whom Page 7 of 9 // 8 // objectively with reference to the language used in the order itself." Orders are not like old wine becoming better as they grow older: A Caveat”. 8. Having heard learned counsel appearing for the Parties and considering the submissions made, it is found that Petitioner while continuing as an Asst. Engineer(Civil), vide notification dtd.30.04.2022 under Annexure-3 he was extended with the benefit of promotion to the rank of Asst. Executive Engineer (Civil). As found, basing on such order of promotion, Petitioner joined in the promotional post on 06.05.2022 under Annexure-6 with due acceptance. 8.1. However, vide the impugned notification, the benefit of promotion though was cancelled, but because of the interim order passed by this Court on 19.05.2022, Petitioner continued in the promotional post till he attained the age of superannuation on 31.03.2024. Since the impugned notification has been issued without following the principle of natural justice and without assigning any reason whatsoever, placing reliance on the decisions as cited (supra), this Court is of the view that such a notification could not have been issued. This Court is also unable to accept the grounds taken in the Page 8 of 9 // 9 // counter affidavit with regard to cancellation of the benefit, in view of the decision in the case of M.S. Gill as cited (Supra), as no such reason was there in the impugned order dt.17.05.2022. 8.2. In that view of the matter, this Court is inclined to quash the impugned notification dtd.17.05.2022 so issued under Annexure-7 and quash the same accordingly. However, quashing of the same will not disentitle the authority to take appropriate action in accordance with law, in which this Court expresses no opinion.
Decision
9. The writ petition accordingly stands disposed of. (BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY) Judge Orissa High Court, Cuttack Dated the 7th November, 2025/Sneha Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: SNEHANJALI PARIDA Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Date: 11-Nov-2025 16:27:01 Page 9 of 9