Sarat Chandra Mohapatra vs Odisha State Warehousing
2021 Latest Caselaw 12314 Ori

        IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
                         W.P.(C) No. 36239 of 2021
                                   And
                          I.A. No. 16828 of 2021

Sarat Chandra Mohapatra             .....                         Petitioner
                                                  Mr. A. Behera, Advocate
                                  Vs.
Odisha State Warehousing            .....                    Opposite parties
Corporation and others


             CORAM:
                DR. JUSTICE B.R. SARANGI

                                        ORDER

01.12.2021

Order No. This matter is taken up by hybrid mode.

2. The petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking to set aside the orders of promotion dated 06.01.2018 and 26.07.2021 under Annexures-1 and 2 respectively, and to issue direction to the opposite parties to conduct review DPC for the year 2018 and 2019 for consideration of the case of the petitioner for promotion to the post of Deputy Superintendent and Superintendent after recasting the gradation list duly restoring his seniority over and above his juniors along with all consequential service and financial benefits.

3. Mr. A.K. Behera, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that on the basis of inquiry into the charges framed against the petitioner on the allegation of gross misconduct and negligence in duty, vide office memorandum no.4230 dated 07.09.2015, the case of the petitioner has not been considered for promotion and ultimately, vide order

dated 10.02.2020, it has been communicated to the petitioner that responsibility of the petitioner cannot be escaped. However, there was short period of about 18 days to get the Warehouse (hired) insured and, as such, the petitioner was warned to be careful in such matter. It is contended that warning has not been defined as a penalty under Rule-18 of Orissa State Warehousing Corporation (Staff) Regulations, 1985, rather only censure has been prescribed under the Rules as penalty. It is contended that if warning has not been defined as one of the penalty and, as such, vide order dated 10.02.2020, only warning has been given to the petitioner, it cannot be construed that penalty has been imposed on the petitioner. To substantiate his contention, he has relied upon the judgment of the apex Court in the case of Union of India v. K.V. Jankiraman, (1991) 4 SCC 109, wherein in paragraph-26, the apex Court held that when an employee is completely exonerated meaning thereby that he is not found blameworthy in the least and is not visited with the penalty even of censure, he has to be given the benefit of the salary of the higher post along with other benefits from the date on which he would have normally been promoted but for the disciplinary/criminal proceedings. It is thus contended that if only warning was given to the petitioner and the same has not come as per Rule-18 of Orissa State Warehousing Corporation (Staff) Regulations, 1985, the petitioner should have been given promotion pursuant to Annexures-1 and 2 dated 06.01.2018 and 26.07.2021 respectively.

4. In the opinion of this Court, the matter requires consideration.

5. Issue notice to the opposite parties in the main case as well as in the interlocutory application.

6. Steps for service of notice on the opposite parties by speed post be taken within three working days. Office shall send notice to the said opposite parties fixing an early returnable date.

Ashok (Dr. B.R. Sarangi) Judge