Orissa High Court
Khageswar Patra vs State Of Odisha And Others ..... ... on 29 April, 2025
Author: Aditya Kumar Mohapatra
Bench: Aditya Kumar Mohapatra
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
WP(C) No.11220 of 2025
Khageswar Patra ..... Petitioner
Represented By Adv. -
Sekh Zakir Hussain
-versus-
State Of Odisha and others ..... Opposite Parties
Mr. Samaresh Jena,
ASC
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADITYA KUMAR
MOHAPATRA
ORDER
29.04.2025
Order No.
01. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid mode.
2. Heard learned counsel for the Petitioner as well as learned
counsel for the State-Opposite Parties. Perused the writ application as
well as the documents annexed thereto.
3. The Petitioner has filed the present writ application with the
following prayer:
"The Petitioner, therefore, most humbly prays
before this Hon'ble Court may graciously be
pleased to issue Rule NISI calling upon the
Opposite Parties to show cause as to why the Op.
No. 1 shall not be directed to promote the
Petitioner for post of (1) to O.A.S-I (SB) Cadre
w.e.f 09.05.2011, (2) to O.A.S. (S) Cadre w.e.f.
24.05.2012, (3) to O.A.S (SAG) Cadre w.e.f.
01.06.2018 and (4) to O.A.S(SS) Cadre w.e.f
01.01.2021 from the date his junior batch mates
got the said promotion and further pleased to
direct the Opposite Parties to extend all the
financial benefits which are due.
And or pass any order/orders as this Hon'ble
Court think fit and proper."
4. Learned counsel for the Petitioner at the outset contended that
initially the Petitioner joined as a Training Reserve Officer (TRO) on
17.06.1989. While working as such, a vigilance case was initiated
against the Petitioner bearing VGR No.39 of 1998 on 12.11.1998.
While the vigilance case was pending, the Petitioner was given
promotion to the rank of O.A.S.-I (JB) w.e.f. 29.03.2011.
5. He further contended that while continuing in the O.A.S.-I (JB)
cadre a departmental proceeding was initiated against the Petitioner
on 28.08.2014. He further submitted that in the meantime the
Petitioner was acquitted in the vigilance case initiated in the year
1998 by virtue of the judgment dated 11.11.2016 passed by the
learned Special Judge, Baripada. Learned counsel for the Petitioner
further submitted that another disciplinary proceeding was also
initiated against the Petitioner by serving a memo of charges dated
03.09.2022. In the aforesaid context, learned counsel for the
Petitioner further submitted that although the Petitioner has been
acquitted in the vigilance case, the departmental proceeding which
was initiated in the year 2014 as well as in the year 2022 are still
pending against the present Petitioner. He further alleged that due to
inaction on the part of the Opposite Parties, the same is not being
concluded expeditiously. In the meantime the DPC was convened
wherein the case of the Petitioner was although considered, however,
the same has been kept in a sealed cover. Having been deprived of
further promotion, the Petitioner has approached this Court by filing
the present writ petition.
5. Learned counsel for the State on the other hand contended that
on perusal of the writ petition, it appears that two disciplinary
proceedings are still pending against the present Petitioner.
Therefore, the Opposite Parties have not given promotion to the
Petitioner by following the Rules. He further contended that in the
DPC the Opposite Parties are bound to follow the sealed cover
procedure as is required by the law in the case where an employee is
facing any disciplinary proceeding. In such view of the matter,
learned counsel for the State contended that the Opposite Parties have
not committed any illegality in not granting further promotion to the
Petitioner in view of the fact that the Petitioner is facing two
disciplinary proceedings, the later one being initiated on 03.09.2022.
On such ground, learned counsel for the State contended that the writ
petition is devoid of merit and accordingly the same should be
dismissed.
6. Considering the submissions made by the learned counsels
appearing for the respective parties, on a careful analysis of their
submission and on a close scrutiny of the document annexed to the
writ petition, this Court is of the view that although according to the
Petitioner the vigilance case has already ended in acquittal, however,
two departmental proceedings are admittedly pending against the
present Petitioner. It further appears that one of the departmental
proceeding was although initiated in the year 2014, however, the
same is still pending despite expiry of decade's time in the meantime.
Considering the aforesaid facts, this Court deems it proper to dispose
of the writ petition at the stage of admission by directing the
Opposite Parties to make every endeavor to conclude the two
disciplinary proceedings initiated in the year 2014 as well as in the
year 2022 respectively as expeditiously as possible preferably within
a period of four months from the date of communication of a certified
copy of today's order. The Petitioner is also directed to cooperate
with the authorities for an early disposal of the pending disciplinary
proceedings.
7. With the aforesaid observations/directions, the writ application
stands disposed of.
Issue urgent certified copy of this order as per Rules.
( Aditya Kumar Mohapatra )
Judge
S.K. Rout
Reason: Authentication Page 4 of 4.
Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack
Date: 01-May-2025 10:05:58
