[Cites 0, Cited by 0]
Orissa High Court
Umesh Chandra Sahoo vs State Of Orissa & Others .... Opposite ... on 13 March, 2026
Author: R.K. Pattanaik
Bench: R.K. Pattanaik
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
W.P.(C) No.19975 of 2020
Umesh Chandra Sahoo .... Petitioner
Mr. Sidheswar Mallik, Advocate
-Versus-
State of Orissa & others .... Opposite Parties
Mr. S. N. Das, ASC
CORAM:
MR. JUSTICE R.K. PATTANAIK
ORDER
13.03.2026
Order No.
14. 1. Heard Mr. Mallik, learned counsel for the petitioner and
Mr. Das, learned ASC for the State.
2. Instant writ petition is filed by the petitioner for a
direction to the opposite parties to open the sealed cover of the
result of the DPC held on 31st December, 2019 and to promote
him to the rank of Chief District Agriculture Officer from the
date when his juniors were promoted i.e. on and from 29th
January, 2020 and to grant him consequential service and
monetary benefits.
3. Mr. Mallik, learned counsel for the petitioner submits
that the petitioner was promoted as per Annexure-1 to the post
of Agriculture District Officer (ADO) and next promotion to
the post of Chief District Agriculture Officer was to be
considered. The further submission is that the juniors of the
petitioner were promoted by the Government vide Annexure-3.
To consider the promotion of the petitioner, a representation
was submitted by him as per Annexure-4 as further submitted.
According to Mr. Mallik, learned counsel, before the DPC held
on 31st December, 2019, the memorandum of charge was
drawn up on 30th December, 2019 vide Annexure-5. The
submission is that even though the case of the petitioner is
considered for promotion by the DPC but its finding was kept
in a sealed cover. Referring to the memorandum dated 30th
December, 2019 at Annexure-5, it is further submitted that the
same was never served directly on the petitioner instead it was
routed through the CDAO, Koraput and ultimately, served on
him 24th January, 2020, the fact which has been acknowledged
by the State in its counter affidavit. It is contended that the
charges are also vague and it covers a period commencing from
1984 to 21st June, 2016. Referring to the articles of charge at
Annexure-5, the contention of Mr. Mallik, learned counsel is
that with the enquiry concluded and the petitioner was
censured. A copy of the enquiry report dated 6th August, 2022
is also referred to in support of the above claim. The
submission is that the petitioner having retired from service on
31st January, 2021 and the enquiry was concluded followed by
a punishment of censure, a direction is required to be issued to
opposite party No.1 to open the sealed cover to consider
promotion of the petitioner in the light of the findings of the
DPC.
3.1. Referring to the written note dated 5th October, 2020,
Mr. Mallik, learned counsel submits that the promotion of the
petitioner could not have been withheld. With the case laws
cited therein, the further submission is that the petitioner could
not have been denied the benefit of promotion at the relevant
point of time since the charge memorandum had not been
served on him by the date when DPC was held i.e. on 31st
December, 2019. A decision of the Apex Court in The
Managing Director, U.P. Warehousing Corporation and
others Vrs. Vijay Narayan Vajpayee AIR 1980 SC 840 is
placed reliance on in support of the contention advanced with
the submission that a departmental enquiry is considered to
commence only when the charge sheet is drawn up and served
on the delinquent, whereas, in the case of the petitioner, it was
accomplished in the month of January, 2020. With the above
submission, a direction is sought for against opposite party
No.1 to declare the result of the DPC dated 31 st December,
2019 in respect of the petitioner.
4. Learned counsel for the State submits that the result of
the DPC could not be declared as the departmental enquiry had
already been initiated by then with the memorandum dated 30th
December, 2019 issued to him. The further submission is that
the petitioner was allowed to appear before the DPC but
because of the chargesheet drawn up in respect of the
departmental enquiry, the result thereof was kept in a sealed
cover which is an established procedure and hence, there has
been no illegality committed.
5. In so far as the memorandum of charge is concerned, it
is dated 30th December, 2019 and the same is at Annexure-5
and it reveals that a copy was not served on the petitioner in
person but was forwarded to the CDAO, Koraput with a request
for the latter to return served copy to the Department towards
acknowledgement in support of the receipt of the same. It is not
denied by the State that the memorandum of charge was
ultimately served on the petitioner on 24th January, 2020.
Rather it has been pleaded in the counter affidavit admitting the
fact that the memorandum was served on the petitioner in the
month of January, 2020.
6. In so far as the decision cited by Mr. Mallik, learned
counsel for the petitioner in Union of India Vrs. K.V.
Jankiraman (1991) 4 SCC 109 is concerned, it has been held
and observed that the promotion cannot be withheld merely
because some disciplinary/criminal proceedings are pending
against the employee and it has also been held therein that to
deny the benefit of promotion, it has to be ensured that the
chargesheet/memorandum has already been issued to the
employee. Similar view has been expressed in Union of India
and others Vrs. Anil Kumar Sarkar (2013) 4 SCC 161
concluding therein that the departmental proceedings normally
said to have been initiated only when the chargesheet is filed.
In Rama Chandra Padhi Vrs. Chairman-cum-M.D.,
NALCO Bhawan, Bhubaneswar & others 2016 (I) ILR-
CUT-912, a Division Bench of this Court relying on the
decision in K.V. Jankiraman (supra) and other case laws of
the Apex Court, concluded that the sealed cover procedure can
be resorted to when a memorandum of charge in a disciplinary
proceeding or a chargesheet in a criminal proceeding is issued
or submitted against the employee. Again, same view has been
expressed by this Court in Kamalakanta Panda Vrs. State of
Odisha in W.P.(C) No.22430 of 2019.
7. In Vijay Narayan Vajpayee (supra), a case law cited
today by Mr. Mallik, learned counsel for the petitioner, it is
also held and observed that a regular departmental enquiry
takes into effect only after the chargesheet is served on the
delinquent. In the case at hand, it is admitted by the State that
the memorandum/chargesheet was served to the petitioner on
24th January, 2020, which means, by the date when DPC was
held i.e. on 31st December, 2019, it had though been issued but
not served and therefore, according to the Court, the result of
the DPC could not have been kept in a sealed cover. Otherwise
also, the enquiry was concluded thereafter and it was received
with a recommendation to censure of the petitioner. A copy of
the report dated 6th August, 2020 having been produced by Mr.
Mallik, learned counsel in course of hearing, the same is gone
through and the recommendation therein that the petitioner is to
be let off with a censure apparently accepted by the
Disciplinary Authority and in view of the above facts and
considering the counter affidavit filed by the State and that the
petitioner since retired from service in 2021, the Court is of the
view that the result of the DPC kept in sealed cover should be
opened for consideration of his promotion to the post of Chief
District Agriculture Officer and a decision thereon at the
earliest.
8. Accordingly, it is ordered.
9. In the result, the writ petition stands disposed of with a
direction to opposite party No.1 to consider the findings of the
DPC held on 31st December, 2019 and to take a decision vis-à-
vis the promotion of the petitioner to the post of Chief District
Agriculture Officer with effect from when his juniors were
promoted vide Annexure-3 and in case of such promotion, to
grant him the consequential service and financial benefits as
admissible complying the same and concluding the above
exercise at the earliest preferably within a period of four weeks
from the date of the receipt of a copy of this order.
10. Issue urgent certified copy as per rules.
RANJAN SETHY Judge
