The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C) No.41625 of 2023 Padmanav Hota …. Petitioner Mr. Laxmikanta Mohanty, Advocate -versus- State of Odisha and others …. Opp. Parties Mr. Saswat Das, A.G.A. CORAM: JUSTICE A.K. MOHAPATRA Order No.
Decision
ORDER 18.01.2024 01. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual /Physical Mode). 2. Heard learned counsel for the Petitioner as well as the learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the State-Opposite Parties. Perused the Writ Petition as well as the documents annexed thereto. 3. The present Writ Petition has been filed with the following prayer : “It is, therefore, prayed that this Hon’ble Court may graciously be pleased to issue notice to the opp. parties calling upon them to file show cause as to why:- i) a direction shall not be issued to the opp. party no.2 to grant promotion to the petitioner to the post of Asst. Mining Officer from the date his junior have been promoted taking note of letter issued by him // 2 // ii) to GA Department dated 11.09.2023 under Annexure-9 and letter dated 07.10.2023 under Annexure-10 as well as earlier order passed by this Hon’ble Court under Annexure-7. the opp. party no.2 and after hearing the parties be pleased to direct to grant promotion to the petitioner to the post of Asst. Mining Officer from the date his juniors were promoted with all service and financial benefits. And pass order/orders, direction/directions as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper. other any 4. Learned counsel for the Petitioner, at the outset, submitted that the Petitioner was initially appointed as Junior Mining Officer on 21.07.2004. While continuing as Junior Mining Officer, the Petitioner was served with a charge memo by the Opposite Party No.2 vide Office Order dated 01.11.2018. Although the Petitioner submitted a reply to the charge memo, however, the same was not considered by the authorities, as a result of which, the Petitioner approached this Court by filing W.P.(C) No.6020 of 2023. This Court vide order dated 06.03.2023 disposed of the writ petition with a direction to the Opposite Party No.2 to consider the reply submitted by the Petitioner. Learned counsel for the Petitioner further contended that while the matter was pending, juniors to the Petitioner have been given promotion on 02.05.2022. He further contended that pursuant to the order dated 06.03.2023 passed by this Court, the Opposite Party No.2 dropped the proceedings as well as the charges leveled against the present Petitioner vide his Office Order dated 08.06.2023 under Annexure-4. However, the order under Annexure-4 reveals that although the charges were dropped, however, the same shall be subject to outcome of the Balasore Vigilance File No.52 of // 3 // 2012. 5. Learned counsel for the Petitioner further contended that in the DPC, which was held in the year 2022, the case of the Petitioner was considered for promotion and the decision of the DPC has been kept in a sealed cover. Due to pendency of a proceeding mentioned hereinabove, the sealed cover has not been opened by the Departmental Authorities and the Petitioner has not been given promotion. Learned counsel for the Petitioner further contended that since Disciplinary Proceeding has been dropped and the Petitioner has not been arrayed as an accused in Balasore Vigilance File No.52 of 2012, there is no impediment in considering the case of the Petitioner for promotion and in such view of the matter, he further contended that the sealed cover be opened and the Petitioner be given promotion with effect from the date his juniors were given promotion to the next higher post. 6. Learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the State-Opposite Parties, on the other hand, contended that since the Petitioner was entangled in a vigilance case as well as a disciplinary proceeding was initiated against him, the case of the Petitioner was considered by the DPC and the result of the DPC has been kept in a sealed cover. It is further contended by the learned Additional Government Advocate that the Petitioner has not been given promotion since the Petitioner was entangled in a vigilance case as well as a departmental proceeding was initiated against him. However, he further contended that in the event the departmental proceeding against the Petitioner has been dropped, as stated by the learned counsel for the Petitioner and as is reveals from the order dated 08.06.2023 under Annexure-4, the case of the Petitioner can be // 4 // considered subject to the clearance by the vigilance authorities. Further, referring to the letters dated 11.09.2023 and 07.10.2023 under Annexures-9 and 10 respectively to the writ petition, learned Additional Government Advocate submitted that vigilance clearance has been sought for from the G.A. Department from the Government of Odisha. Since no clearance has been received from the vigilance department, the case of the Petitioner has not been considered. In such view of the matter, learned Additional Government Advocate submitted that the writ petition filed by the Petitioner is pre-mature and, accordingly, the same is devoid of merit. 7. Having heard the learned counsels appearing for the respective parties and on a careful examination of the background facts of the present case as well as the materials on record and further keeping in view the limited nature of grievance involved in the present writ petition, this Court deems it proper to dispose of the writ petition at the stage of admission by directing the Opposite Party No.3 to provide the clearance as has been sought for by the concerned department vide their letters dated 11.09.2023 and 07.10.2023 under Annexures-9 & 10 respectively within a period of three weeks from the date of communication of a copy of this order by the Petitioner to the concerned department. The Opposite Party No.2 upon getting such clearance from the Opposite Party No.3 shall consider the case of the Petitioner and in the event it is found that the Petitioner is not involved in the Balasore Vigilance File No.52 of 2012, then the case of the Petitioner be considered for promotion by either convening a review DPC within a period of four weeks from the date of taking such a decision or in the event the DPC has considered the case of the Petitioner and the result of such consideration has been kept in sealed cover, the Opposite Party No.2 shall do well to open the sealed cover // 5 // subject to compliance of the aforesaid direction. Any decision taken by the authorities be intimated to the Petitioner within ten days thereafter. 8. With the aforesaid observation and direction, the writ petition is disposed of. Debasis ( A.K. Mohapatra) Judge Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: DEBASIS AECH Designation: Secretary Reason: Authentication Location: OHC, CUTTACK. Date: 22-Jan-2024 10:46:17