Promotions to government servants cannot be granted during the pendency of criminal proceedings against them, as established by Office Memoranda and Supreme Court rulings.

ORDER :

1. In all these writ appeals by the State of Odisha against the corresponding orders of the learned Single Judge, a common question arises for consideration viz. whether during the pendency of a criminal case against the government servant in the Court of the Special Judge (Vigilance), and notwithstanding exoneration of the said employee in the departmental proceedings, could the learned Single Judge have ordered grant of either ad hoc or regular promotion to the government servant subject to the outcome of the criminal proceedings?

2. One other common factor that requires to be noticed is that except in W.A. No.596 of 2023 where the impugned order under challenge was passed by the learned Single Judge after completion of pleadings in the writ petition, in all the other appeals the impugned order under challenge was passed by the learned Single Judge on the very first date of hearing of the writ petition without an opportunity to the State of Odisha to file its reply.

3. This Court has heard the learned counsel for the parties.

4. There is no dispute in that the criminal case involving the Respondents in the present appeals is still pending before the Court of the Special Judge (Vigilance) at various stages. In some cases, even a charge sheet is yet to be filed and in other charges may or may not have been framed; in certain other cases, trial is in progress.

5. Learned counsel appearing for the respective Respondents argue that on account of the long years of the pendency of the criminal case and with the impending prospect of many of the Respondents superannuating in the immediate future, one equitable solution would be for this Court to direct the Appellants (State of Odisha) to grant them ‘ad hoc’ promotions. In support of such plea, reliance placed on an interim order passed by this Court on 27^th March, 2023 in W.A. No.321 of 2022.

6. However, it is pointed out by Mr. Khuntia, learned Additional Government Advocate (AGA) that in W.A. No.321 of 2022 the Respondent had been exonerated in the departmental proceedings and the report sent by the Special Judge, Vigilance to this Court showed that the trial in T.R. Case No.50 of 2014 was progressing very slowly with only three witnesses having been examined. Accordingly, this Court in the said case directed the trial Court to conclude the entire trial and deliver the judgment on or before 1^st August, 2023. It is in those circumstances that no interim order was passed by the Division Bench staying the order of the learned Single Judge. The said writ appeal has been directed to be listed on 10^th August, 2023.

7. Apart from the fact that the aformenetioned order is an interlocutory one peculiar to the facts noted, as far as the present batch of cases is concerned, departmental proceedings are still pending in some and in all the cases criminal proceedings are pending.

8. The Court has been shown a compilation of Office Memoranda (OMs) and Notifications issued by the Government of Odisha from time to time. These include OM dated 18^th February 1994, 4^th July 1995, 1^st November 1997, 28^th January 1999, 28^th May 2012, 29^th April 2017 and 17^th June 2021issued by the General Administration Department. None of them envisages or permits grant of promotion to a government servant either on regular or on ad hoc basis during the pendency of a criminal case involving such government servant.

9. Further in terms of the law explained by the Supreme Court in Union of India v. K.V. Janaki Raman , (1991) 4 SCC 109 , State of Punjab v. Chamanlal Goel , (1995) 2 SCC 570 , the judgment of this Court dated 5^th October, 2016 in W.P. (C) No. 19