The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C) No.18651 of 2021 Prasant Kumar Das …. Petitioner Mr. B. Routray, Sr. Advocate along with Mr. K.C. Sahu, Advocate State of Odisha & Ors. -versus- …. Opposite Parties Mr. S.K. Jee, AGA CORAM: JUSTICE BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY Order No. 06. 1. This matter ORDER 05.08.2025 taken up is through Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual/Physical) Mode. 2. Heard learned counsel appearing for the Parties. 3. The present Writ Petition has been filed inter alia challenging the order dtd.11.05.2021 so passed by the Government-Opposite Party No.1 under Annexure-6. Vide the said order, Petitioner was reverted to the post of Senior Grade Diarist and was posted to the Department of Handlooms, Textiles & Handicrafts. 4. Learned Sr. Counsel appearing for the Petitioner contended that while continuing as against the post of Senior Grade Diarist in terms of the office order dtd.16.02.2012 under Annexure-2, Petitioner was promoted to the post of ASO by way of induction and // 2 // posted to Home Department vide order dtd.19.10.2016 under Annexure-3-Series. Subsequently, vide another letter issued on 22.11.2016 under Annexure-3-Series, Petitioner was posted to Department of Handlooms, Textiles & Handicrafts with immediate effect against the existing vacancies. Pursuant to such order of promotion, joining of the Petitioner as against the post of Assistant Section Officer was also accepted by the Department of Handlooms, Textiles & Handicrafts vide office order dtd.29.11.2016 under Annexure-4. 4.1. It is contended that subsequent to such promotion to the rank of A.S.O, Petitioner vide office order dtd.08.12.2017 under Annexure-5 was relieved to undergo the training programme, which he also completed as reflected in office order dtd.22.02.2018 under Annexures-5/2. 4.2. It is contended that after getting the benefit of promotion with successful completion of the training, Petitioner while continuing as against the post of A.S.O, without any prior notice and without issuing any show cause, vide the impugned office order dtd.11.05.2021 under Annexure-6 was reverted to the post of Senior Grade Diarist on the ground that some manipulation was made in his CCR, basing on which he has got the benefit of promotion to the rank of A.S.O. Page 2 of 11 // 3 // 4.3. It is contended that challenging such reversion from the post of A.S.O to the post of Sr. Grade Diarist, Petitioner made a representation before Government- Opposite Party No.1 with the plea that he has not committed any manipulation in his C.C.R and accordingly the ground on which he has been reverted is not sustainable. On the face of such reply made by the Petitioner under Annexure-16, when no action was taken, Petitioner approached this Court by filing W.P.(C) No.17235 of 2021. This Court vide order dtd.07.06.2021 under Annexure-17-Series, when directed Opposite Party No.1 to take a decision on the claim of the Petitioner so made in his representation under Annexure-16, without proper appreciation and while rejecting the same, office order dtd.11.05.2021 so passed under Annexure-6 was made absolute vide office order dtd.11.06.2021 under Annexure-18. 4.4. Learned Senior counsel appearing for the Petitioner vehemently contended that the ground on which Petitioner was reverted vide
Decision
order dtd.11.05.2021 under Annexure-6 that there is manipulation in his CCR is without any reason and basis and no such manipulation was ever made in the CCR of the Petitioner. 4.5. It is accordingly contended that the ground on which, Petitioner was so reverted vide order Page 3 of 11 // 4 // dtd.11.05.2021 under Annexure-6, further confirmed vide order dtd.11.06.2021 under Annexure-18 are not sustainable in the eye of law. 4.6. It is also contended that since Petitioner was duly promoted to the rank of A.S.O and his joining was not only accepted but also he undergo the training, being a regular Government employee, he could not have been reverted vide the impugned order without following the principle of natural justice. In support of such submission, reliance was placed the decisions 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 Page 4 of 11 // 5 // 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 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.” 4.8. It is accordingly contended that the impugned order dtd.11.05.2021 so passed by Opposite Party No.1 under Annexure-6, further confirmed vide order dtd.11.06.2021 under Annexure-18 are not sustainable in the eye of law and requires interference of this Court. 4.9. It is however not disputed that Petitioner because of such reversion, Petitioner is continuing in the reverted post till date and he is going to retire in the year 2026. Page 5 of 11 // 6 // 5. Mr. S.K. Jee, learned Addl. Government Advocate for the State on the other hand while supporting the impugned order made his submission basing on the stand taken in the counter affidavit so filed by Opposite Party No.1. 5.1. It is contended that Petitioner though was given the benefit of promotion to the rank of A.S.O vide order dtd.19.10.2016 under Annexure-3-Series and he joined in the said post with due acceptance, but subsequently while considering the claim of the Petitioner in W.P.(C) No.30288 of 2020, it was found that Petitioner has got the benefit of promotion because of manipulation in his CCR. 5.2. It is contended that since Petitioner got the benefit because of the manipulation in the CCR and when it came to the knowledge of the concerned authority, the order of promotion was cancelled by reverting him to the post of Senior Grade Diarist vide order dtd.11.05.2021 under Annexure-6. 5.3. It is further contended that basing on such order of reversion, Petitioner is continuing as against the post of Senior Grade Diarist from the date of reversion. It is also contended that after due consideration of the grievance made by the Petitioner under Annexure-16, the order of reversion so passed on 11.05.2021 was Page 6 of 11 // 7 // confirmed vide order dtd.11.06.2021 under Annexure-18. It is accordingly contended that Petitioner has been rightly reverted and it requires no interference. 6. To the submission made by learned Addl. Government Advocate for the State, learned Sr. Counsel appearing for the Petitioner made further submission contending that prior to passing of the impugned order of reversion on the ground of manipulation of the CCR on 11.05.2021, proceedings were directed to be initiated against Sri Susil Kumar Baliarshingh, Sri Kali Prasanna Dash, Sidharta Kumar Panda, Ex-Sr. Grade Typist of Finance Department and Sri Ashish Kumar Tripathy, Ex-Sr. Grade Typist of ST & SC Dev. Department vide Home Department Letter dtd.28.10.2019 under Annexure-11-Series on the ground of manipulation of CCRs by those employees to get the benefit of promotion in the year 2016. No such proceeding was ever initiated against the Petitioner for such alleged manipulation. 6.1. It is contended that since on the ground of manipulation of the CCR, no proceeding has been initiated against the Petitioner as has been initiated against the aforesaid employees vide communication issued under Annexure-11-Series, no action could have been taken in reverting the Petitioner. Page 7 of 11 // 8 // 6.2. It is accordingly contended that since there is no allegation that Petitioner has manipulated the CCR and got the benefit of promotion to the rank of A.S.O in the year 2016, the ground on which the impugned order was passed on 11.05.2021 under Anexure-6, further confirmed vide order dtd.11.06.2021 under Annexure-18 requires interference of this Court. 7. Having heard learned counsel appearing for the Parties and considering the submissions made, this Court finds that Petitioner while continuing as a Junior Grade Diarist, he was promoted to the rank of Senior Grade Diarist vide order dtd.16.02.2012 under Annexure-2. While so continuing he was inducted to the grade of A.S.O in OSS cadre and promoted to the post of A.S.O vide office order dtd.19.10.2016 under Annexure-3-Series. In the said order, Petitioner’s name finds place at Sl. No.8. Joining of the Petitioner in the promotional post of A.S.O was also accepted w.e.f. 23.11.2016 as reflected in office order dtd.29.11.2016 under Annexure-4. 7.1. It is also found that Petitioner thereafter was allowed to undergo the required training programme vide office order dtd.08.12.2017 under Annexure-5, which he successfully completed, as found from office order dtd.22.02.2018 under Annexure-5/2. Page 8 of 11 // 9 // 7.2. However, while so continuing as an A.S.O., vide office order dtd.11.05.2021 under Annexure-6, he was reverted to his original post of Senior Grade Diarist, on the ground that Petitioner has got the said benefit by committing fraud and manipulation in the CCR. This Court taking into account the nature of order passed under Annexure-6, further confirmed vide order dtd.11.06.2021 under Annexure-18, finds no document has been enclosed by the State-Opposite Parties showing any such manipulation at the instance of the Petitioner in in his CCR. Since no document has been enclosed to the counter affidavit showing that Petitioner has manipulated the CCR at any point of time, the ground on which the impugned order of reversion was passed on 11.05.2021 under Annexure-6 further confirmed vide order dtd.11.06.2021 under Annexure-18 as per the considered view of this Court are not sustainable in the eye of law. 7.3. It is also the view of this Court that Petitioner since is a regular Government employee and he was allowed to get the benefit of promotion to the rank of A.S.O vide order dtd.19.10.2016 under Annexure-3- Series, without following the principle of natural justice, he could not have been reverted while continuing as against the post of A.S.O vide the impugned order dtd.11.05.2021 under Annexure-6, Page 9 of 11 // 10 // further upheld vide order dtd.11.06.2021 under Annexure-18, in view of the decisioin in the case of Rajesh Agarwal as cited (supra). 7.4. In view of the aforesaid analysis, this Court is inclined to quash order dtd.11.05.2021 so passed under Annexure-6 as well as order dtd.11.06.2021 so passed under Annexure-18 by Opposite Party No.1. While quashing both the orders, this Court remits the matter to Opposite Party No.1 to take a fresh decision with regard to the eligibility of the Petitioner to continue in his promotional post in terms of order dtd.19.10.2016 under Annexure-3-Series. 7.5. This Court directs Opposite Party No.1 to take a fresh decision by giving due opportunity of hearing to the Petitioner and after due verification of the CCR of the Petitioner. If on such verification it will be found that there is no manipulation in the CCR, the order dtd.19.10.2016 will be revived and the Petitioner will be allowed to continue as A.S.O with all consequential, service and financial benefits. 7.6. However, if on verification, it will be found that there is manipulation in the C.C.R and Petitioner has got the benefit of promotion, then order dtd.11.05.2021 will be upheld. This Court directs Opposite Party No.1 to complete the entire exercise within a period of three Page 10 of 11 // 11 // (3) months from the date of receipt of this order. Petitioner is permitted to provide a copy of this order before Opposite Party No.1 for compliance. 8. Accordingly, the Writ Petition stands disposed of. Subrat Judge (Biraja Prasanna Satapathy) Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: SUBRAT KUMAR BARIK Reason: Authentication Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACK Date: 14-Aug-2025 17:05:58 Page 11 of 11