Orissa High Court
Tofan Kumar Mohanta vs ) State Of Odisha ..... Opposite Parties on 24 July, 2025
Author: Aditya Kumar Mohapatra
Bench: Aditya Kumar Mohapatra
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
WP(C) No.20236 of 2025
Tofan Kumar Mohanta ..... Petitioner
Represented By Adv. -
Krishna Chandra Sahu
-versus-
1) State Of Odisha ..... Opposite Parties
2) Director R And R Cum Ex Officio, Represented By Adv. -
Spl Secy. To Govt. Of Odisha Mr.D.N.Lenka,AGA
Secretariat, Bbsr
3) Spl. Land Acquisition Officer,
Subarnarekha Irrigation Project,
Baripada
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADITYA KUMAR
MOHAPATRA
ORDER
24.07.2025
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 the Hon'ble Court
be graciously pleased to pass the following
relief(s):-
i) The Hon'ble Court be pleased to admit
and allow this writ petition.
ii) The Hon'ble Court be pleased by directing
the Opp.Parties for promotion of the
Petitioner to the next higher post of
Revenue Inspector (R.I.) keeping in view of
the G.A. & P.G. Deptt. Resolution so also
orders of this Hon'ble Court under
Annexures-7 & 8 (series) in ensuing DPC
or if necessary by holding a review DPC
with all consequential service benefits
within a time bound period for the interest
of justice.
iii) The Hon'ble Court be pleased to pass any
other order(s)/direction(s) as deems fit and
proper for the bona fide interest of
justice."
4. Learned counsel for the Petitioner at the outset contended that
the Petitioner was initially appointed as Process Servicer on
07.02.1992 and thereafter promoted as an Amin and posted under
Opposite Party No.3. While working as such, he was placed under
suspension w.e.f. 27.09.2018 pending initiation of a disciplinary
proceeding. The Petitioner was reinstated in service vide order dated
19.102019 and was posted as such in the Office of Opposite Party
No.3. Finally, the Petitioner was served with a memorandum of
charge for his involvement in Koraput Vigilance P.S. Case No.21 of
2018. In the disciplinary proceeding the Petitioner had already
submitted his written statement of defence vide Disciplinary
Proceeding No.7852. 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 Amin has been published on
26.06.2025 as per Annexure-6 series. A DPC was convened to
consider promotion of the Amin Clerk to the post of Revenue
Inspector in 2021. 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
Revenue Inspector ignoring the case of the Petitioner. While the
matter stood thus, again another final gradation list was published on
in 2021 to consider promotion of the Amin to the post of Revenue
Inspector and consequently a DPC was convened in 2021 and on the
basis of the recommendation of such DPC, a list of Amins who were
promoted to the post of Revenue Inspector 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 Revenue Inspector. 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 under Annexure-7. 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 for
his promotion to the rank of Revenue Inspector 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
RKS
Designation: AR-CUM-Senior Secretary
