Denial of promotion based solely on pending criminal proceedings constitutes unjust punishment, especially when trials are unduly delayed.

ORDER :

A.K.MOHAPATRA, J.

1. Heard Mr. A.K. Biswal, learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner and B.P. Tripathy, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the State-Opposite Parties.

2. This writ petition has been filed by the Petitioner seeking a direction to the Opposite Parties to promote him to the rank of Joint Director of Factories and Boilers Level-II in terms of the DPC recommendation dated 20.08.2019 on the ground that he is the senior most suitable candidate available for the post, irrespective of pendency of vigilance proceeding against him for last twelve years and further prayer for grant of all consequential service and financial benefits in the light of the law laid down by this Court vide order dated 7.7.2021 in W.P.(C) No.17624 of 2021 under Annexure-6

3. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the Petitioner that on being selected, the Petitioner joined as Inspector of Factories & Boilers under the Government of Odisha on 29.01.1993. Further, considering the performance of the Petitioner, he was promoted to the post of Deputy Director of Factories & Boilers as per Notification dated 26.08.2009 of the Government of Odisha in Labour & Employment Department. While the matter stood thus, the Opposite Party No.1 vide letter No.2014 dated 26.3.2019 circulated tentative gradation list in the cadre of Deputy Directors of Factories and Boilers.

4. It is further submitted that in the said tentative gradation list, the name of the Petitioner was placed at Serial No.1 and that the next promotion of post for the Petitioner is the Joint Director of Factories and Boilers Level-II. However, to fill up one vacancy in the post of Joint Director of Factories and Boilers Level-II, a meeting of Selection Board was convened on 20.08.2019 to consider the eligible candidates for promotion to the post of Joint Director of Factories and Boilers Level-II on the basis of the gradation list issued by the Department on 26.3.2019. Since the Petitioner’s name appears in the Serial No.1 in the gradation list, learned counsel for the Petitioner emphatically submits that the Petitioner is ultimately eligible for consideration and, as such, he should have been appointed against the said post.

5. It is further contended that the name of the Petitioner along with two other persons, namely, Satya Narayan Sethi and Abani Kanta Naik were also considered by the Selection Board. It is needless to mention here that Satya Narayan Sethi and Abani Kanta Naik are juniors to the Petitioner. Furthermore, the Selection Board while recommending the above two persons for promotion to the post of Joint Director of Factories and Boilers Level-II, kept the recommendation in respect of the Petitioner in a sealed cover due to pendency of SBP (Vig.) Case No.13 of 2009 and corresponding departmental proceeding No.59/ESI dated 3.1.2013. Mr. Biswal further contends that while the other two persons, who were admittedly juniors, having been promoted, took charge of their promotional post whereas the Petitioner is still continuing against the old post under the Director of Factories and Boilers.

6. In the context of the departmental proceeding No.59 dated 3.1.2019, it is further contended by the learned counsel for the Petitioner that the same was challenged before the Tribunal in O.A. No.1234 of 2019 for quashing of the departmental proceeding. In the said O.A., the Tribunal passed an interim order directing the Opposite Parties that till the conclusion of the departmental proceeding, the DPC shall not be held to consider