Orissa High Court
Jyotirmaya Patel vs State Of Odisha And Another on 17 February, 2025
Author: Arindam Sinha
Bench: Arindam Sinha, M.S. Sahoo
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
W.A. No. 2764 of 2024
and
I.A. No.7180 of 2024
Jyotirmaya Patel .... Appellant
-Versus-
State of Odisha and another .... Respondents
Advocates appeared in this case :
For Appellant : Mr. Jayanta Rath, Sr. Advocate
For Respondents : Miss. A. Dash, Addl. Standing Counsel
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARINDAM SINHA,
THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.S. SAHOO
JUDGMENT
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Date of hearing and judgment: 17th February, 2025
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ARINDAM SINHA, ACJ.
1. Mr. Rath, learned senior advocate appears on behalf of
applicant-appellant and submits, the appeal be admitted on condoning
reported delay of 14 days. Cause has been shown in the application.
2. Miss Dash, learned advocate, Additional Standing Counsel
appears on behalf of State and in fairness does not oppose the
application.
3. Perused causes shown. We accept them in appreciation of fair
stand taken on behalf of State. The delay is condoned and the appeal
admitted. The application is disposed of.
4. Appellant had sought promotion in terms of the
recommendation kept in sealed cover. Mr. Rath submits, by impugned
judgment dated 16th August, 2024, though the learned single Judge
appreciated the law but erred on facts in dismissing the writ petition.
He draws attention to order dated 16th December, 2019 made by the
Disciplinary Authority. His client was exonerated. Concluding
paragraph from the order is reproduced below.
"Now therefore, after careful consideration of the
statement of imputation of misconduct, written statement
of defence, findings of the Inquiring Officer and
representation submitted by the Delinquent Officer, the
charges leveled against the Delinquent Officer not being
proved as per the Inquiry Report of the Inquiring Officer,
the Delinquent Officer is hereby exonerated from all
charges."
5. He submits, perusal of paragraphs 7 to 9 in impugned
judgment will reveal that there was correct appreciation of declaration
the law made by the Supreme Court. In Union of India v. A.N.
Mohanan reported in (2007) 5 SCC 425 facts were, an employee's
recommendation was kept in sealed cover because a disciplinary
proceeding was ongoing. The proceeding resulted in minor
punishment of censure. In such situation it was said, the findings in
the sealed cover are not to be acted upon. The learned single Judge
then went on to consider another judgment of the Supreme Court in
Union of India v. K.V. Jankiraman reported in (1991) 4 SCC 109.
The Supreme Court, in that case, considered that when an employee is
completely exonerated, meaning thereby that he is not found blame
worthy in the least and is not visited with the penalty even of censure,
he has to be given the benefit of 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 proceeding. He submits,
this was a clear case of his client having been exonerated.
Recommendation in the sealed cover, for his promotion, was required
to be acted upon. He seeks interference in appeal.
6. Miss Dash relies on inquiry report dated 4th February, 2019.
She places the concluding part in it and lays emphasis, there was
suggestion that the delinquent officer (DO) may be warned for
negligence in government duty.
7. It appears from the writ file, proceeding by the Departmental
Promotion Committee (DPC) was held on 4th March, 2013. Inter alia,
petitioner's recommendation was directed to be kept in sealed cover
due to pendency of departmental proceeding. As aforesaid,
subsequently petitioner was exonerated by the Disciplinary Authority
(DA) on order dated 16th December, 2019. On query we have
ascertained that the sealed cover was not opened though called for by
the learned single Judge.
8. Impugned judgment is reversed in appeal. Respondent no.2 is
directed to open the sealed cover and give effect to its contents from
the date as per the recommendation. We have ascertained that the
sealed cover is not in the Court record. As such appellant will
communicate certified copy of this order to respondent no.2 and
effect of it be given within four weeks of the communication.
9. The appeal is disposed of.
(Arindam Sinha)
Acting Chief Justice
(M.S. Sahoo)
Judge
Sks
