SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2016 Supreme(Ori) 441

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACK
I. MAHANTY & D.P. CHOUDHURY, JJ.
State of Odisha, Represented through the Chief Secretary & Another – Petitioners
Versus
Smt. Sanjita Das & Others – Opposite Parties
W.P. (C) No. 18923 of 2014
Decided On : 09-08-2016

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Mr. M. Sahoo.
For the Opposite Parties : Miss D. Mohapatra and S. Parida.

The main legal point established in the judgment is the application of the sealed cover procedure and government circulars in cases of pending criminal charges for promotion.

Headnote:

Promotion - Odisha Administrative Service - 18.2.1994, 28.5.2012, 4.7.1995 - The court discussed the application of the sealed cover procedure in cases of pending criminal charges and the government circulars of 1994 and 1995. The court found that the sealed cover procedure should be adopted in the case and directed the consideration of ad hoc promotion for the opposite party no. 1.

Fact of the Case:

The petitioner challenged the order of the Odisha Administrative Tribunal regarding the promotion of the opposite party no. 1, who was recommended for promotion but faced a criminal case. The Tribunal allowed the original application, leading to the filing of the writ petition.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the sealed cover procedure should be adopted in the case and directed the consideration of ad hoc promotion for the opposite party no. 1.

Issues: The main issue was the application of the sealed cover procedure and the government circulars in cases of pending criminal charges for promotion.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the sealed cover procedure should be adopted in the case and directed the consideration of ad hoc promotion for the opposite party no. 1 based on the government circulars of 1994 and 1995.

Final Decision: The writ petition was allowed, the order of the Tribunal was set aside, and the petitioners were directed to consider the case of the opposite party no. 1 for ad hoc promotion by following the Government Circular dated 4.7.1995 from the date when her juniors got promoted.

JUDGMENT :

D.P. CHOUDHURY, J.

1. Challenge has been made to the order dated 15.5.2014 of the learned Odisha Administrative Tribunal (hereinafter called the Tribunal) passed in O.A. No. 2541 of 2013 whereunder the Tribunal has passed order to accord promotion to the opposite party no. 1 from the date her juniors got promoted.

FACTS

2. The shorn off unnecessary details of the case of the petitioner are that the opposite party no. 1 is a member of Odisha Administrative Service of 1987 batch. It is stated that while the opposite party no. 1 was working in the cadre of OAS, Senior Branch, on 5.11.2012, Departmental Promotion Committee (hereinafter called the DPC) was convened and she was found suitable for promotion to the rank of OAS (super time scale) along with her juniors. Though the proceeding of DPC meeting held on 5.11.2012 was finalized and recommendation was issued, no notification effecting promotion on implementation of recommendation was issued till 28.5.2013, but by notification no. 14382 dated 28.5.2013, others were promoted to the rank of OAS (super time scale) ignoring the recommendation of the DPC in respect of the opposite party no. 1. In the meantime, there was a criminal case filed against the opposite party no. 1 alleging involvement of the present opposite party No. 1 as per the report of the Superintendent of Police, CID CB, Odisha, Cuttack. It was intimated by the Crime Branch that cognizance of the offence has been taken against the opposite party no. 1 on 14.5.2012 by the concerned Court. It is the further case of the opposite party no. 1 that while the proposal was submitted to Government to promote her along with other junior officers, her case was kept in sealed cover in view of the report of the Crime Branch. The opposite party no. 1 challenged the sealed cover procedure and filed O.A. No. 2541 of 2013 before the Tribunal and the Tribunal, relying upon the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India and others vs. K.V. Jankiraman and others, reported in (1991) 4 SCC 109, allowed her Original Application on the ground that charge sheet in the criminal case was not served on the opposite party no. 1 by the date of meeting of the Selection Board on 5.11.2012 nor on 28.5.2013 when the recommendation of the Selection Board was implemented and others were given promotion. The Tribunal passed order to open the sealed cover and issue order of promotion in her favour from the date her juniors got promoted. Being aggrieved by such order passed by the Tribunal, the present writ petition has been filed by the State-petitioners.

SUBMISSIONS

3. Mr. Sahoo, learned Additional Government Advocate submitted that the order of the Tribunal is illegal, improper and against the instructions of the Government in General Administration Department. According to him, an officer whose name is recommended for promotion to the Screening Committee but in whose case any of the circumstances mentioned in paragraph-3 of the Office Memorandum dated 18.2.1994 arise after the recommendations of the Screening Committee are received before he is actually promoted, will be considered as if his cases had been placed in a sealed cover by the Screening Committee. Paragraph-3 of such Office Memorandum dated 18.2.1994 is placed below:

“3. Promotion of officers to the various posts/services

At the time of consideration of cases of officers for promotion, details of such officers in the zone of consideration falling under the following categories should be specifically brought to the notice of the concerned Screening Committee.

(i) Government servants under suspension;

(ii) Government servants in respect of whom a charge-sheet has been issued and disciplinary proceeding are pending;

(iii) Government servants in respect of whom prosecution for criminal charge is pending.”

4. Mr. Sahoo, learned Additional Government Advocate stressed on the words “criminal charge pending.” He submitted that when the proposal was mooted to the Government








































Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top