A court must ensure due process is followed under High Court Rules before granting relief in writ petitions, particularly when disciplinary or criminal proceedings are pending against the applicant.

JUDGMENT :

Chakradhari Sharan Singh, CJ.

1. The State of Odisha has preferred the present intra-Court appeal putting to challenge an order dated 27.02.2023 passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P.(C) No.5920 of 2023 filed by the respondent.

2. The respondent was holding the post of Sub-Inspector of Police and had filed the writ petition i.e. W.P.(C) No.5920 of 2023 seeking a direction to the State of Odisha / its officials to grant him promotion to the rank of Inspector of Police from the date the persons junior to him were granted promotion to the said post of Inspector, with seniority and all consequential benefits. The said writ petition was filed on 24.02.2023 and was listed for fresh admission with defects on 27.02.2023 before the learned Single Judge. It is worthwhile mentioning the respondent’s case for promotion to the post of Inspector of Police with effect from a date in the year 2022 was considered and kept in a sealed cover in view of pendency of departmental proceeding and criminal case against him.

3. On the very same day, when the writ petition was taken up on 27.02.2023, learned Single Judge has granted the relief sought for by the respondent by the impugned order with a direction to the Director General and Inspector General of Police to grant promotion to the respondent to the rank of Inspector of Police from the date his juniors and batchmates were granted such promotion. The learned Single Judge, in the impugned order, has however observed that the promotion so granted shall be subject to final outcome in the criminal proceeding and that such promotion shall not confer equity in the event he loses in the criminal case.

4. Various grounds have been taken on behalf of the appellants to assail the impugned order including the ground that in view of a Co- ordinate Bench Decision of this Court in the case of State of Odisha and another v. Joseph Barik (W.A. No.805 of 2021 and batch of writ appeal allowed on 11.05.2023), no such order could have been passed since the disciplinary proceeding and a criminal case were pending.

5. However, we are inclined to interfere with the impugned order on the sole ground that the impugned order was passed on the very first day granting the respondent full relief without any opportunity to the appellants / opposite parties in the writ petition to controvert the averments made in the writ petition. The impugned order is unsustainable in view of the provisions under Rules 9 and 10 of Chapter XV of the Rules of the High Court of Orissa, 1948, which lay down the procedure for disposal of applications filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, which read thus:-

CHAPTER - XV

APPLICATIONS UNDER ARTICLES 226, 227 AND 228 OF

THE CONSTITUTION AND RULES FOR THE ISSUE OF

WRITS UNDER THE SAID ARTICLES (EXCEPT WRITS IN

THE NATURE OF HABEAS CORPUS)

9. Unless the Court sees no sufficient cause to admit the application and rejects it, notice of the application shall be served on all parties to the proceedings to show cause by a date fixed and where the application relates to any proceedings in or before a subordinate Court or authority and the object is either to compel such Court or any Officer thereof or any authority to do and act in relation to such proceedings or to quash them or any order made therein, notice to show cause shall also be served on such Court or Officer or authority, as the case may be, with directions to produce or cause production of the records of the proceeding along with its or his return. Every notice under this rule shall be accompanied by copies of the application and affidavit and annexures, if any.

10. (1) Any answer showing cause against such an application shall, except with the leave of the Court be made by filing an affidavit and by serving copies