Orissa High Court
Dillip Kumar Mallik vs State Of Odisha And Others ..... ... on 14 July, 2025
Author: Aditya Kumar Mohapatra
Bench: Aditya Kumar Mohapatra
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
WP(C) No.18906 of 2025
Dillip Kumar Mallik ..... Petitioner
Represented By Adv. -
Biplaba P.B. Bahali
-versus-
State Of Odisha and others ..... Opposite Parties
Mr. D. Lenka, AGA
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADITYA KUMAR
MOHAPATRA
ORDER
14.07.2025
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:
"It is therefore prayed that your Lordship may
be graciously pleased to admit this case, issue
notice to the Opp. Parties asking them to show
cause as to why the petitioner shall not be
granted promotion to the next higher post as per
his entitlement, if the Opp. Parties show no or
insufficient reasons, then direct the Opp. Parties
to promote the Petitioner to his next higher post
as per his entitlement within a stipulated period
of time,
And, direct the Opp. Parties to complete the
pending D.P. No. 02/2019 as expeditiously within
specified time frames.
And,/Or pas any such order(s)/ direction(s)/ as
deemed fit and proper by Your Lordship."
4. Learned counsel for the Petitioner at the outset contended that
the Petitioner was initially appointed as Junior Assistant and posted
in Buguda Tahasil on 15.07.2014. While working as such, he was
placed under suspension w.e.f. 19.01.2018 pending initiation of a
disciplinary proceeding. The Petitioner was reinstated in service vide
order dated 04.08.2018 and was posted as such in the ICDS Project,
Bhanjanagar. Finally, the Petitioner was served with a memorandum
of charge on 04.02.2019 for his involvement in Berhampur Vigilance
P.S. Case No.01 of 2018. In the disciplinary proceeding the Petitioner
had already submitted his written statement of defence on
19.03.2019. Vide letter dated 17.05.2019, the Sub-Collector,
Bhanjanagar has been appointed as enquiring officer to enquire the
charges levelled against the Petitioner. The grievance of the
Petitioner in the present writ petition is that although the
departmental proceeding has been initiated since 2019, however, the
same has not been concluded as of now. As a result of which, the
Petitioner is not getting any promotion to the next higher level.
5. Learned counsel for the Petitioner further submitted that in the
meantime a draft gradation list of Junior Clerk has been published on
15.01.2019. A DPC was convened to consider promotion of the
Junior Clerk to the post of Senior Assistant on 20.09.2019. However,
the case of the Petitioner was not considered by such DPC on the
ground of pendency of the departmental proceeding as well as the
vigilance case. As a result of which, the Petitioner has been
superseded by his juniors in the final gradation list and they have
been given promotion to the post of senior assistant ignoring the case
of the Petitioner. While the matter stood thus, again another final
gradation list was published on 26.12.2022 to consider promotion of
the junior revenue assistant to the post of senior revenue assistant and
consequently a DPC was convened on 10.01.2024 and on the basis of
the recommendation of such DPC, a list of junior revenue assistant
who were promoted to the post of senior revenue assistant has been
published. In the aforesaid context, learned counsel for the Petitioner
further contended that against the case of the Petitioner has been
ignored and the juniors to the Petitioner have been considered for
promotion to the post of senior revenue assistant. Being aggrieved by
such action of the Opposite Parties, the Petitioner has approached this
Court by filing the present writ petition.
6. Learned counsel for the Petitioner in course of his argument,
referred to the office memorandum dated 17.06.2021 of the G.A. &
P.G. Department, Government of Odisha. By referring to the said
O.M., learned counsel for the Petitioner contended that in Clause-2 of
such O.M. the Government of Odisha has laid down the principle to
consider the case of adhoc promotion of employees against some
disciplinary proceeding pending for more than two years.Learned
counsel for the Petitioner further submitted that it is the settled
position of law that in the event a disciplinary proceeding is pending
against any employee, the DPC is required to follow a sealed cover
procedure. He further contended that in view of the O.M. dated
17.06.2021, the sealed cover is to be opened and the delinquent
employee is to be given adhoc promotion in the event the disciplinary
proceeding has not been concluded within the period of two years as
mentioned in Clause-2 of the O.M. On such ground, learned counsel
for the Petitioner contended that the Opposite Parties be directed to
give promotion to the Petitioner on adhoc basis by opening the sealed
cover in the event the sealed cover procedure has been followed or by
convening a review DPC to consider the case of the Petitioner.
7. Learned counsel for the State on the other hand contended that
he has no instruction in the matter. However, he did not dispute the
fact that the case of the Petitioner is to govern by the O.M. dated
17.06.2021 of the G.A. & P.G. Department, Government of Odisha.
In such view of the matter, learned counsel for the State contended
that he will have no objection in the event this Court directs the
Opposite Parties to consider the case of the Petitioner in the light of
the O.M. dated 17.06.2021 within a stipulated period of time.
8. 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 the case of the Petitioner is
covered by the O.M. dated 17.06.2021 of the G.A. & P.G.
Department, Government of Odisha. With regard to the pendency of
the vigilance case, this Court is of the view that the same shall be
governed by the principle laid down by this Court in the case of
Sangram Mohanty v. State of Odisha and others decided in W.P.(C)
No.11376 of 2025 vide order dated 30.04.2025. Accordingly, the
Opposite Party No.2 shall consider the case of the Petitioner so far
the vigilance case is concerned, keeping in view the judgment in
Sangram Mohanty's case (supra). In such view of the matter, the
present writ petition is being disposed of by granting liberty to the
Petitioner to approach the Opposite Party No.2 along with a copy of
today's order within two weeks from today. In such eventuality, the
Opposite Party No.2 shall consider the case of the Petitioner in terms
of the O.M. dated 17.06.2021 of the G.A. & P.G. Department,
Government of Odisha and redress the grievance of the Petitioner
within a period of six weeks from the date of communication of a
certified copy of today's order. Any decision so taken by the
Opposite Party No.2 be communicated to the Petitioner within ten
days from the date of passing such order.
9. 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
Digitally Signed Page 5 of 5.
Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack
Date: 16-Jul-2025 12:52:53
