Orissa High Court
Susanta Kumar Pattanayak vs State Of Odisha And Others .... Opposite ... on 25 July, 2025
Author: Mruganka Sekhar Sahoo
Bench: Mruganka Sekhar Sahoo
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
W.P. (C) No.16289 of 2011
An application under Articles 226 and 227 of the
Constitution of India
Susanta Kumar Pattanayak .... Petitioner
-Versus-
State of Odisha and others .... Opposite Parties
Advocates appeared in this case:
For Petitioner : Mr. Sarat Chandra Dash, Advocate
For Opp. Parties: Mr. Debaraj Mohanty,
Additional Government Advocate
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DIXIT KRISHNA SHRIPAD
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MRUGANKA SEKHAR SAHOO
JUDGMENT
Decided on 25.07.2025
PER MRUGANKA SEKHAR SAHOO, J.
1. The petitioner by filing writ petition brings into question
the decision of the opposite parties-authorities deciding not to
grant promotion to the petitioner to the post of the 'Senior
Clerk' from the post of 'Junior Clerk' when he was working in
the designation of Junior Clerk in the establishment of the
Bhadrak-Balasore judgeship on 17.05.2011. In short the
contention of the petitioner is that when his other colleagues,
'similarly situated' working as Junior Clerk have been given
promotion to the post of Senior Clerk he has been arbitrarily
and irrationally denied such promotion/not considered for
promotion.
2. By order dated 28.10.2024, a coordinate Bench had
passed the following order:
"1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid
arrangement(video conferencing/physical mode).
2. The Writ Petition has been filed by the Petitioner
praying as follows:-
"It is, therefore, humbly prayed that your
Lordships be graciously pleased to admit the
writ application, issue notice the Opposite Parties
and upon hearing issue a writ of mandamus
directing the authorities to consider the case of
the petitioner though the promotion to the post of
Senior Clerk in accordance with provisions
contained in Rule 11 of the Orissa District
Subordinate Courts Non-Judicial Staff Services
(Method of Recruitment and Condition of
Services) Rules, 2008, and allow him to continue
in the judgeship of Balasore pursuant to the
option exercised in Annecxure-3 and enlisted in
Annexure-4 to the writ application and modify
the order dated 17.05.2011 and 18. 05.2011 in
Annexure 5 and 6 so far as it relates to the
Petitioner".
3. Since there is an appeal provision against the
impugned order, the learned counsel for the Petitioner
seeks time till next week to obtain instruction as to
whether the Petitioner has preferred any appeal or
not.
4. List this matter on 06.11.2024."
Thereafter it seems the issue whether the petitioner has
preferred any appeal or not against the order not granting him
promotion has not been further addressed. As stated at the
Bar the petitioner has opted to prosecute further the present
petition.
3. Several issues have been raised by the petitioner but the
thrust of the argument is that the petitioner should have been
considered for giving promotion that was given to other Junior
Clerks on 17.05.2011.
It is submitted that since no disciplinary proceeding was
pending against the petitioner he should have been given
promotion or in the alternative if the disciplinary proceeding
was pending against him, consideration regarding the
petitioner for giving promotion should have been kept in sealed
cover by the Departmental Promotion Committee.
4. We feel it appropriate to deal with the main issue that
falls for adjudication by us i.e. whether the petitioner could
have been given promotion or after being considered for
promotion the result of consideration would have been kept in
sealed cover by following the principle laid in the case of Union
of India v. K.V. Janaki Raman: AIR 1991 SC 2010: (1991) 4
SCC 109.
5. Pursuant to earlier orders the original records pertaining
to the departmental proceeding have been produced by Mr.
Mohanty, learned Additional Government Advocate for our
perusal and effective adjudication of the matter.
From the counter affidavit/records it is seen that there are
serious allegations against the petitioner, out of the several
allegations against which the petitioner was proceeded against
departmentally, two allegations have been proved and he has
been imposed with the punishment by the learned District
Judge by order dated 05.07.2013. The punishment imposed
was stoppage of one increment without cumulative effect with
a severe warning to guard against recurrence of such type of
lapses in future, in D.P. No.2 of 2011.
6. The said D.P. No.2 of 2011 was initiated by order of the
learned District Judge, Balasore dated 16.05.2011 with the
imputation against the petitioner that he had obtained a
collusive compromise decree in his favour on 10.02.2010 in
C.S. No.276 of 2009 fraudulently posing himself as plaintiff in
the said civil suit during the period of his incumbency as
Junior Clerk (Suits Clerk) in the Court of Civil Judge (Junior
Division), Balasore. Further the order (in the said D.P. dated
28.02.2011) indicates that the copy of charge memo was
served upon the petitioner on 02.08.2011 as reported by the
head of the office, Civil Judge (Senior Division), Jaleswar under
whom the petitioner was working. Thereafter the petitioner has
participated in the proceeding culminating imposition of
punishment.
7. In the D.P., recommendation by the inquring officer by
report dated 24.01.2013 was punishment to stop three
increments with cumulative effect. The charges were framed
against the petitioner in D.P. No.2 of 2011 by the order of the
learned District Judge, Balasore dated 17.05.2011 and it is
contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the
petitioner did not receive the charge memo. It is submitted that
therefore no disciplinary proceeding can be said to be pending
as on the date of consideration for promotion by the D.P.C.
that was held prior to giving promotion on 17.05.2011.
8. Concededly, the D.P. No.2 of 2011 was with regard to
incumbency of the petitioner in the Court of Civil Judge
(Junior Division), Balasore from 14.07.2006 to 09.11.2010.
The charge memo was communicated to the head of the office
where the petitioner was working i.e. Civil Judge (Senior
Division) and that was received by him, may be, the date of
receipt is not very clear.
9. On being asked it is stated at the Bar that the petitioner
has not challenged the imposition of punishment on him nor
any challenge has been made to the alleged further action of
the authorities in not considering him for promotion. Now
assuming for the sake of argument that the petitioner's case
would have been considered for promotion and kept in sealed
cover, the sealed cover could have been opened after the
disciplinary proceeding was completed by order of punishment
dated 05.07.2013; the result would have been due to
inditement in the disciplinary proceeding petitioner could not
have got promotion with effect from an earlier date.
10. In view of the discussions made above, the writ petition is
dismissed, being devoid of any merit. Costs made easy.
The original office records produced by the learned
Additional Government Advocate shall be returned forthwith.
Dixit Krishna Shripad
Judge
Mruganka Sekhar Sahoo
Judge
Orissa High Court, Cuttack
The 25th July, 2025/Jyostna
Designation: Personal Assistant
