JUSTICE D. DASH JUSTICE v. NARASINGH DATE OF FINAL HEARING
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C) No.26063 of 2022 In the matter of an application under Article 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India. ------------------ Sangram Keshari Swain …. Petitioner -versus- 1. Union of India 2. Union Public Service Commission, New Delhi 3. Government of Odisha, represented through Secretary, Bhubaneswar 4. Ganesh Chandra Patra 5. Sashadhar Nayak 6. Bikash Chandra Mohapatra 7. Bratati Harichandan 8. Manoj Kumar Pattnaik 9. Sadananda Nayak 10. Mary Lakra 11. Dayanidhi Nayak 12. Srinibas Behera 13. Yudhistir Nayak 14. Udaya Narayan Das 15. Sujata Sahu 16. Ganghadhar Sahoo 17. Aswini Kumar Mishra 18. Ramashis Hazra 19. Sushanta Kumar Mohanty 20. Jyoti Prakash Das 21. Sitanshu Kumar Rout 22. Krushna Prasad Patil …. Opposite Parties Page 1 of 25 For Petitioner For Opposite Parties : : Mr. K.C. Kanungo, Advocate Mr. Md. Ziaul Haque, Adv.(O.P.2) Mr. S.N. Das, ASC (O.P.3) CORAM: JUSTICE D. DASH JUSTICE V. NARASINGH DATE OF FINAL HEARING :20.09.2024 DATE OF JUDGMENT: 09.10.2024 V. Narasingh, J. The Petitioner invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India assails the order dated 21.06.2022 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Cuttack Bench, Cuttack in O.A No.260/00260 of 2021 at Annexure-1 by which the claim of the Petitioner for non-selection to the cadre of Indian Administrative Service (IAS) was rejected. 2. For convenience of reference the reliefs sought in the writ petition is extracted hereunder: “…….Writ of Mandamus and/or Writ of Certiorari or any other appropriate Writ(s) or direction calling upon the Opposite Parties to show cause as to why Annexure-1 shall not be quashed in so far as the order at Anneuxre-1 in view of the facts and law pleaded above and in the event opposite Parties fail to show cause or show insufficient cause the said Rule be made absolute for the ends of justice. AND Page 2 of 25 the that to hold Be further pleased imposition of punishment lost its stint/ effect after january,2010 and therefore the currency period shall not flow to the Assessment Matrix ( five years from 2014-15 to 2018-19) for which the select list of 2019 for selection to the post of IAS was finalized for the ends of justice. AND Be further pleased to quash the communication made by the O.P. No. 1 vide Notification No. 14015/17/2020-AIS(1)-B dt.26.03.2021 (part of Annexure-2) and also Notification No.10032 dt. 26.03.2021 (part of Annexure-2) issued by the O.P.No.3, wherein promotion was granted in favour of the private Opposite Parties No. 4 to 22 ignoring the admitted seniority of the Petitioner for the ends of justice. AND Be further pleased to direct the O.P. No.1 to 3 to issue fresh selection list, declaring and treating the Petitioner to have been promoted to the post of Indian Administrative Service cadre with all consequential benefits and arrears thereof for the ends of justice. xxx xxx xxx” 3. The Petitioner an Odisha Administrative Service Cadre Officer (OAS) approached the learned Central Administrative Tribunal Cuttack Bench, Cuttack (hereinafter referred to as “the Tribunal”) as an Applicant being aggrieved by his non-selection to Indian Administrative Service (IAS) in consonance with the Indian Administrative Service Recruitment Rules 1954 read with Indian Administrative Service (Appointment by Promotion) Regulations, 1955 questioning the same to be outcome of total non application of mind on account of erroneous appreciation of the order of minor punishment vide order dated 23.05.2012, imposing punishment of Page 3 of 25 „Censure‟ and 'Recovery' on account of a disciplinary proceedings initiated against him as per memorandum dated 13.06.2005. 3-A. It is apt to note that admittedly on 04.08.2012 the Petitioner was promoted to the post of OAS Group-A (Sr. Branch) w.e.f. 09.05.2011 and, thereafter, promoted to the post of OAS (Supertime) in terms of the Notification dated 20.11.2012. On 23.12.2016, he was promoted to OAS (Super Administrative Cadre) w.e.f. 01.01.2017 and, on 09.10.2018, he was promoted to OAS (Special Secretary Cadre) w.e.f. 10.10.2018. 3-B. It is the case of the Petitioner that the State of Odisha recommended names of 27 Officers for appointment by way of promotion to IAS Cadre against 2018 vacancy, in which, his name was at Sl. No.12 whereas 8 OAS Officers including one of his Juniors in the seniority list, were appointed /promoted to IAS Cadre but his case was not recommended. 3-C. On 30.04.2020, the State of Odisha forwarded names of 67 OAS Officers for consideration for appointment/ promotion to IAS in terms of IAS (APPOINTMENT BY PROMOTION) REGULATIONS, 1955 (herein after referred as “Promotion Regulation”) against vacancy of 2019 wherein his name was at Sl. No.3. Page 4 of 25 3-D. On 26.03.2021, 19 OAS Officers were appointed/promoted to IAS Cadre including his Junior but he could not be promoted and, according to him, gross injustice was caused to him in the decision making process in the matter of his non promotion to the cadre of IAS against the vacancies of 2019. 3-E Therefore, he approached the Tribunal in O.A No.260/2021 with a prayer to quash the Notification No.14015/17/2020AIS(1)-B dated 26.03.2021 vide Annexure-A/8 and also Notification No.10032 dated 26.03.2021 issued by the Respondent No.3 vide Annexure-A/9 to the Original Application, wherein promotion was granted to the Respondents 4 to 22 ignoring the undisputed seniority of the applicant. 3-F. The said Notifications are at Page-115 and 117 of the writ petition being part of Annexure-2. He had also prayed for a direction to the Respondent Nos.l to 3 to issue fresh selection list, declaring and reflecting his name to have been promoted to the post of IAS Cadre, taking into consideration his position at Sl. No.3 of the list vide Annexure- A/7 to the said original application. (At page-112 of the present writ petition). 3-G. Learned Tribunal while dismissing the original application by the impugned order dated 21.06.2022 at Annexure-1 had Page 5 of 25 specifically observed that the Selection Committee rightly took note of the punishment imposed on the Petitioner-applicant to find him unsuitable notwithstanding the outstanding grading given by his reporting/reviewing/accepting authority in the State Service Cadre. 3-H. In addition to that, learned Tribunal arrived at the finding, after perusing the minutes of the Selection Committee, that the Selection Committee was duly constituted and their decision is not justiciable and held that it is not the function of the Tribunal to sit in appeal over the decision of the Selection Committee, in as much as whether a candidate is fit for a particular post or not is to be decided by a duly constituted Selection Committee having expertise. 3-I. Learned Tribunal further observing that in absence of any allegation of malafide or arbitrariness against the experts constituting the Selection Committee and that there was no illegality in the matter of selection of the private respondents and non-selection of the Petitioner-applicant, dismissed the original application. 4.
Legal Reasoning
It is submitted by the learned counsel for the Petitioner, Mr. K.C. Kanungo, that the crux of the matter revolves round the decision reached by the learned Tribunal rejecting the claim of the Petitioner on the ground of competency to interfere with the decision of Selection Committee although the grievance of the Petitioner Page 6 of 25 primarily relates to the process of reasoning adopted by the Selection Committee in adjudging the Petitioner as unsuitable. 4-A. Therefore, the stand of the Petitioner in the present writ petition impugning the order passed by the learned Tribunal is the outcome of non-application of mind by the learned Tribunal in not properly applying the principle decided by the Apex Court in plethora of cases prescribing the contours relating to interference with the findings of the Selection Committee. 4-B. It is urged that the learned Tribunal misdirected its focus relating to the grievance of the Petitioner with respect to illegality and impropriety of the Selection Committee vis-à-vis the decision making process. 4-C. The moot point as advanced by the Petitioner is that the Selection Committee ought not to have declared him unfit on account of erroneous reasoning adopted by the Selection Committee in taking into consideration a minor penalty imposed against him in the nature of „Censure‟ and „Recovery‟ way back in the year 2012 while concluding a disciplinary proceeding initiated against him in the year 2005 and utilizing such punishment adverse to the Petitioner‟s interest as against the vacancy for the year 2018 & 2019 respectively. 4-D. It is contended by the learned counsel for the Petitioner that the disciplinary authority framed definite charges against the Page 7 of 25 Petitioner by initiating a proceeding in the year 2005 and the authority took their own time to conclude such proceeding without attributing any such role to the Petitioner in causing delay in disposal of such disciplinary proceeding keeping the proceeding pending for seven years and concluding such proceeding imposing the minor penalty as per order dated 23.03.2012. As such the effect of such minor penalty should not play any role in the decision making process while considering the promotion to the cadre of IAS against 2019 quota taking into consideration the assessment matrix from the year 2014-15 to 2018-19. 4-E. It is urged with vehemence that the allegations with respect to alleged misconduct against the Petitioner were of the year 2005 or prior to that for which the employer initiated the disciplinary proceeding in the year 2005. There is no allegation of any wrongful action or inaction against the Petitioner thereafter. 4-F. On the contrary the Petitioner was found suitable and got promotion in his own cadre to different posts more particularly taking into consideration the conclusion of the proceeding drawn against him and imposition of minor penalty. 5. At this stage the relevant question required to be answered is that if a particular action or inaction or irregularity of an employee gives scope for initiation of a disciplinary proceeding against him Page 8 of 25 then on subsequent culmination of such proceeding with penalty, irrespective of the nature i.e major or minor, whether currency to be counted from the date of imposition of penalty or from the date when the consequence of punishment runs its course. 6. The Petitioner contends the date of imposition of penalty should be the basis to determine the currency of punishment and more so when the punishment is minor (censure) and not the selective date of final recovery as stipulated, as per the whims of the disciplinary authority. 7. In the present case it is apposite to take note that the authority decided to impose the penalty of Censure and Recover an amount of Rs.39,675.95 paisa that too in 20 installments. 8. The Petitioner contends that the decision to conclude the proceeding after a period of seven years and to divide the amount of recovery in 20 installments are all unilateral decisions of the authorities without any role played by the Petitioner and in such way the authority cannot exercise their own discretion to utilize and to define the currency of punishment to be prejudice of the Petitioner. 9. Therefore, the impugned decision at Annexure-1 of the learned Tribunal restricting itself to scrutiny of the decision of the selection process fallaciously relying upon the settled position of law not to interfere with the selection acting as an appellate authority over Page 9 of 25 such decision is nothing but an erroneous conclusion tainted with malice in law as the learned Tribunal failed to appreciate that there is gross irregularity in the decision making process adopted by the Selection Committee which is the outcome of arbitrariness, improper application of mind and completely ignoring the effect of the delay committed at the level of the disciplinary authority in effecting recovery and in the process depriving him of further service benefits ignoring his continuous outstanding service career in terms of the merit and ability to hold higher post. And, consequentially allowing his juniors to steal a mach over his legitimate claim(s). 10. It is further submitted by the Petitioner that the learned Tribunal has miserably failed to appreciate that the currency of penalty dated 23.03.2012 which was due to expire by January 2014 cannot in any way affect the assessment matrix involving the year 2014-15 to 2018-19, on the premises that the authority could not recover the desired installment due to their own laches without any complicity of the Petitioner and as such whether such failure to recover entails continuance of the currency of penalty to remain in force till the Petitioner deposited the entire amount on 24.05.2018. 11. Learned counsel for the Petitioner relied upon various decisions with respect to “relate back theory” so far as the expiry of punishment is concerned, in absence of any lapse or fault on his part Page 10 of 25 and contended that it is the duty and responsibility of the competent authority to enforce recovery in terms of the penalty. 12. It is submitted that the Selection Committee was required to go through the service record of each of the eligible officer with special reference to the performance of the officer during last five years including the vacancy year. 13. In the present case the reckonable years in the assessable matrix were 2014-15 to 2018-19. The guideline clearly states that the effect of punishment ought not to have any relation to any of the years in the assessment matrix. 14. Out of the two-punishments imposed on the Petitioner the punishment of „Censure‟ did not fall in any of the year of assessment matrix having been implemented immediately. So far the recovery of amount is concerned it is the decision of the authority to divide the same into 20 installments which would have been over by January, 2014 as such the same is also not falling in any of the year of assessment. 15. However, the decision of the Disciplinary Authority to divide the recovery amount into 20 installments and the failure on the part of the competent authority to recover such amounts in time rather the initiative by the Petitioner to deposit the same in the year 2018 i.e. Page 11 of 25 24.05.2018 cannot adversely impact or affect the year of the assessment matrix. 16. The Petitioner contends that there is no controversy relating to the law laid down about the competency of the Tribunal or any Court of law to sit in an appeal and to act as an appellate authority on the decision of the selection committee consisting of experts. 17. However, it is equally trite that the Court and the Tribunal has every right to interfere with the decision-making process while evaluating the conclusion of the Selection Committee if such decision-making process is arbitrary and suffers from irregularity. 18. As the present case relates to the very approach on the part of the authorities in determination of currency of punishment in order to arrive at a conclusion having its effect on a particular year of assessment matrix, this Court has ample jurisdiction to interfere with such erroneous decision making process resulting in a patently defective decision arrived at by the Selection Committee. It is stated that the learned Tribunal completely failed to appreciate such settled position and glossed over the real issue in determining the currency of punishment and its effect on any particular year of assessment matrix. 19. Therefore, the Petitioner prays for interference with the decision of the learned Tribunal particularly relying upon the Page 12 of 25 principles of “relate back” as decided in the case of (i) P.H. Kalyani vrs. Air France, Kolkata, AIR 1963 SC 1756 and (ii) Punjab Dairy Development Corporation Ltd. & another Vs. Kala Singh and others, 1997 SCC (L&S) 1434. The Petitioner also relied upon the settled position of law that an employee cannot be made to suffer for no fault of his in as much as the authorities cannot take advantage of their own delay and laches so also their own failure to put the employee in a disadvantage position in terms of his service condition and in this context relied on the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Laxmi Saroj Vs. State of U.P. & Ors., AIR 2023 SC 120. STAND OF UPSC 20. Opposite Party No.2–UPSC in their counter before the learned Tribunal so also in the present writ petition stated that the Petitioner has been declared unfit by the Selection Committee taking into consideration the fact that the effect of penalty of recovery was over only on 24.05.2018 i.e. the date on which the Petitioner deposited the amount having been informed that such amount has not been recovered so far. 21. The lack of commitment on the part of the Petitioner as a Government Servant is evident from his submissions that nothing is attributable to him regarding delay in recovery. The Petitioner cannot Page 13 of 25 claim to be innocent and wash off his hands due to non-
Decision
implementation of the penalty. As such the writ petition is liable to be dismissed. It is argued that the view expressed by the Selection Committee in arriving at a conclusion with respect to non-suitability of the Petitioner was due to evaluation of the effect of punishment on any of the year of assessment matrix since the currency of punishment remains in operation till the amount is actually deposited by the delinquent (Petitioner) and as such the reasoning of the selection cannot be faulted. And, in this context reliance was placed on para 3.1, 4.6, 4.7 and 4.7.1 of “The Guidelines/Procedures for categorization of State Civil/Police/Forest Service officers and preparation of a list of suitable officers by the Selection Committee for promotion to the Indian Administrative Service/ Indian Police Service/Indian Forest Service in terms of Regulations 5(4) and 5(5) of the Promotion Regulations”, which is extracted hereunder: “A. SPAN /SCOPE OF ASSESSMENT 3.1 The Selection Committee would go through the service records of each of the eligible officers, with special reference to the performance of the officer during the last five years including the vacancy year, and after deliberation will record the assessment of the Committee in the Assessment Sheet comprising the Assessment Matrix (Officer x Year-wise assessment) and the Column for Overall Assessment of the officers. Page 14 of 25 xxx xxx xxx B.4 Treatment of Penalties xxx xxx xxx 4.6 The Selection Committee, while preparing Select Lists, may take into account the effect of 'Censure' as under: (a) If the date of imposition of the 'censure' falls within any of the years in the Assessment Matrix, the Committee would categorise the officer as 'Unfit' for the year in which it is imposed for the first Select List prepared in which he is eligible to be considered. Thereafter, the Overall Assessment of the officer may be made as per the procedure given in section B.3 of the Guidelines. (b) If the date of imposition of the 'censure' is subsequent to the last year in the Assessment Matrix, and upto the date of the SCM, the Committee would categorise the officer as 'Unfit' in the overall Assessment for the first Select List prepared in which he is eligible to be considered. The Selection Committee, while preparing Select (c) The penalty of 'censure' would be ignored for the subsequent Select Lists for which the officer may be eligible to be considered. 4.7 Lists, may take into account the effect of currency of penalties other than 'censure' as under: The currency of the Penalty is taken from the date from which it is imposed/effective to the date it ceases to be in force. 4.7.1. The Selection Committee meets to prepare the Selection List for the current year only. (a) If the currency of the penalty flows into the SCM year, the officer would be graded as 'Unfit' in the Overall Assessment for the current year. (b) If the currency/effect of the penalty before the SCM year, but is having implications on any of the years in the Assessment Matrix, the Committee would categorise the officer as "Unfit" for the relevant year(s) in the Assessment Matrix when the penalty was current. Thereafter, the Overall Assessment of the officer may be made as per the procedure given in Section B.3 above.” (SCM: Selection Committee Meeting) Page 15 of 25 And, on the basis of such guidelines it is the consistent stand of the UPSC that as per guidelines as above the currency of the Penalty is taken from the date from which it is imposed/effective till the date it ceases to be in force. 22. It is further stated that the period of currency of the said penalty in the case of the Petitioner was flowing into the Assessment Matrix (2014-15 to 2018-19) for the Select List of 2019 and as per the Guidelines extracted hereinabove, the Applicant was assessed overall as 'Unfit ' since the currency of the penalty of 'recovery of Rs.39657.95' was over only on 24.05.2018 as intimated by the State Government and on such basis the Petitioner was not included in the Select list of 2019 for promotion to IAS of Odisha Cadre. 23. The assessment of the selection committee in respect of the Petitioner for being included in the select list of 2019 submitted in the tabular form in the counter is extracted under: *Unfit due to penalty Page 16 of 25 It is further contended that the State Government in their proposal submitted to the Commission had furnished Statement of Penalty wherein it was indicated that penalty of 'Censure' and 'Recovery‟ of Rs. 39657.95 only in 20 instalments was imposed upon the Petitioner vide State Government's Order dated 23.05.2012. The State Government also intimated that the currency of penalty was over on 24.05.2018. 24. Regarding non-recovery of penalty amount on time by the State Government, it is submitted that apart from the Administration, it is also the responsibility of the concerned officer to inform the Administration/ the competent authority, if the recovery of penalty amount has not been effected. In the instant case, the penalty of recovery of Rs.39657.95 in 20 instalments was imposed upon Shri Sangram Kesari Swain, the Petitioner, on 23.05.2012 and the Petitioner being senior and responsible State Service Officer should have informed the Administration/ the competent authority immediately that the instalments are not deducted from his salary. Only after the receipt of the communication dated 23.05.2018 from the State Government, he deposited the entire amount of the Penalty on 24.05.2018. The Petitioner has failed to inform the State Government that the order of recovery from his salary has not been Page 17 of 25 implemented and as such, he cannot be absolved of negligence solely blaming the State Government. 25. It is further submitted that in the case of Union of India etc. etc. vrs. Jankiraman etc. etc., AIR 1991 SC 2010 the Apex Court held that an employee found guilty of misconduct cannot be placed at par with other employees and his case has to be treated differently. The relevant portion of the judgment relied upon reads as under “While considering an employee for promotion, his whole record has to be taken into consideration and if a promotion committee takes the penalties imposed upon the employee into consideration and denies him the promotion, such denial is not illegal and unjustified. If the promoting authority can take into consideration the penalty or penalties awarded to an employee in the past while considering his promotion and deny him promotion on that ground, it will be irrational to hold that it cannot take the penalty into consideration when it' is imposed at a later date because of the pendency of the proceedings, although it is for conduct prior to the date the authority considers the promotion." 26. It is apt to note here that in terms of the order dated 03.11.2022 notice of this writ petition was served on the Opposite Parties 4 to 22. Memo evidencing the same filed by the learned Additional Standing Counsel is on record. There is no appearance on behalf of the said Opposite Parties. ANALYSIS This Court has to answer the core issue raised by the Petitioner with respect to the interpretation of currency of punishment Page 18 of 25 and its impact on the assessment matrix and the approach thereof by the Selection Committee. 27. After perusing the material on records, it transpires that the issue framed by the learned tribunal only centres around the competency of the court to sit on appeal with a decision taken by a duly constituted selection committee. 28. This Court is of the considered view that the Tribunal has committed an error in ignoring the real issue i.e. the legality in the decision-making process by the selection committee in reaching a conclusion about the unsuitability of the Petitioner. Rather the Tribunal allowed its focus to be digressed to a non-issue i.e. interference with the decision of the selection committee. 29. No doubt, it is the settled position of law that decision of the experts in a selection committee should not be ordinarily reviewed by the court assuming power as if it is an appellate authority but it is also trite that exceptions to such proposition is there when the very process of assessment is vitiated either on the ground of bias, malafides, arbitrariness or unreasonableness in the decision making process. In this context it is apt to refer to the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Union Public Service Commission vs. M. Sathiya Priya and ors. reported in (2018) 15 SCC 796 outlining the contours of judicial review relating to functioning of Selection Committee while Page 19 of 25 cautioning that the self imposed restrictions cannot be given an absolute go bye. The Apex Court held that; “In our Constitutional Scheme, the decision of the Selection Committee/Board of Appointment cannot be said to be final and absolute. Any other view will have a very dangerous consequence and one must remind oneself of the famous words of Lord Acton „Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely‟.” Thus the power of this Court exercising plenary jurisdiction under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India is not fettered to examine as to whether the decision arrived by the Selection Committee, as in the case at hand, regarding correct interpretation and application of the Regulation governing the field. In the event of such scrutiny it cannot be said that this Court has assumed the jurisdiction as an Appellate Authority sitting in judgment over the views of experts. 30. Since the Petitioner in the present case has raised a very pertinent point with respect to the manner of approach of the Selection Committee in interpreting the imposition of minor punishment and its impact on the assessment matrix in terms of the Rules and Regulations in force vis-a-vis the arbitrary action of the disciplinary authority in lingering the process of concluding the proceeding as well as taking steps to recover the amount towards punishment therefore this Court is of the view that the Tribunal has Page 20 of 25 committed an error in ignoring the core aspect of arbitrariness i.e. whether there is unreasonableness and/or irrationality in the decision making process in reaching such erroneous conclusion. The approach of the learned Tribunal can best be expressed reiterating the old saying “when you ask the wrong question you cannot get the right answer”. 31. Paras 4.7 and 4.7.1 of the Guidelines of the Commission stated above envisages the effect of currency of penalties other than 'censure' is as under: “4.7 The Selection Committee, while preparing Select Lists, may take into account the effect of currency of penalties other than „censure‟ as under: The currency of the Penalty is taken from the date from which it is imposed/effective to the date it ceases to be in force. "4.7.1 The Selection Committee meets to prepare the Select List for the current year only. (a) If the currency of the penalty flows into the SCM year, the officer would be graded as „Unfit' in the Overall Assessment for the current year. (b) If the currency/effect of the penalty lapses before the SCM year, but is having implications on any of the years in the Assessment Matrix, the Committee would categorise the officer as "Unfit" for the relevant year(s) in the Assessment Matrix when the penalty was current. Thereafter, the Overall Assessment of the officer may be made as per the procedure given in Section B.3 above.” (Emphasis Supplied) A bare reading of the aforesaid provision and applying the same in the present case, it can be stated that the disciplinary proceeding initiated against the petitioner was concluded on Page 21 of 25 23.05.2012 where two minor punishments were imposed out of which one is Censure which admittedly was not the ground of disqualification on account of the nature of penalty as evident from the guidelines. 32. Similarly, the punishment of recovery is also a single penalty having no defined currency of punishment. Discretion lies with the authority to take a decision in deciding whether the amount is to be recovered once or in instalments and if on instalments then the number of instalments in which it is to be recovered. But on account of extension of the period of recovery it cannot be construed that the same is effective and treated to be in force. This Court is of the firm view that the word “Recovery” itself puts a responsibility on the competent authority to recover the amount and no discretion is neither left nor can be exercised by the delinquent to deposit the same. 33. However, the Petitioner-delinquent deposited the said amount on the very next day when he was informed about non- recovery of instalments fixed by the authorities. As such the currency of punishment cannot be stretched as per the desire and interpretation of the Selection Committee making it dependent upon the last amount deposited by the Petitioner in terms of communication issued by the authorities. There are other defined penalties in the OCS (CC&A) Page 22 of 25 Rules 1962 where the authority has to indicate the number of year(s) to remain effect of such penalty and in such cases the currency of punishment shall have a cascading effect. 34. In the present case the nature of penalty being recovery, therefore, the currency of the punishment is on the date when the order was passed and under no circumstances it can be till a future date depending upon the execution of the order as per discretion and whims of the authority in recovering the last pie. The currency of the both punishments i.e. Censure as much as Recovery ought to be construed to be co-terminus on the date on which it is imposed. 35. This Court took note of the other relevant provisions regulating the selection process wherein it is stated that if the currency/effect of the penalty lapses before the SCM year, but is having implications on any of the years in the Assessment Matrix, the Committee would categorise the officer as "Unfit" for the relevant year(s) in the Assessment Matrix when the penalty was current. The same does not come into play in the instant case. 36. On account of the finding that the currency of the punishment is limited to the year of its imposition i.e. 2012 the same cannot have any impact on the Assessment Matrix 2014- 2015 to 2018-19 for the Select List of 2019. As such the view expressed by the Selection Committee with respect to the Petitioner as unfit for his Page 23 of 25 promotion and its acceptance by the Union and State Government is not sustainable. 37. Therefore, this Court is of the considered view that the learned Tribunal has fallaciously judged the case before it by deciding a non-issue while ignoring the real issue as stated above for which the order passed at Annexure 1 is not sustainable and liable to be interfered with and hence set aside. 38. As such the relief sought by the Petitioner to interfere with the finding of the Selection Committee and to extend him the benefit of promotion at par with his juniors Opposite Parties 4 to 22, who got such promotion stands allowed. 39. In the facts of the present case this Court while not inclined to quash the notification at Annexure-2 issued by the State Government in G.A. Department relating to the promotion of the Opposite Parties 4 to 22, directs the Opposite Parties 1 to 3 to convene a review Selection Board within a period of three months hence to consider the case of the Petitioner for promotion to the rank of IAS on the basis of assessment matrix 2014-15 to 2018-19, without being impeded by the penalty of recovery. 40. In the event the Petitioner is found suitable, he be promoted to the cadre of IAS from the date, the Opposite Parties 4 to 22 were Page 24 of 25 given such promotion, in terms of Notification dated 26.03.2021 at Annexure-2 with all consequential service benefits. 40-A. However, the pay of the Petitioner shall be fixed notionally from such retrospective period and he shall be eligible to get actual financial benefits from the date of this order in the event he is found suitable. 41. The Writ Petition is accordingly disposed of. (V. Narasingh) Judge D. Dash, J. I agree (D. Dash) Judge Orissa High Court, Cuttack, Dated the 9th October, 2024/Ayesha Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: AYESHA ROUT Designation: Junior Stenographer Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa Date: 10-Oct-2024 14:13:12 Page 25 of 25