Orissa High Court
Union Of India And Others vs Dr. Ashok Kumar Panda .... Opp. Party on 29 October, 2025
Author: S.K. Sahoo
Bench: S.K. Sahoo
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
W.P.(C) No.30483 of 2025
Union of India and others .... Petitioners
Mr. Satya Sindhu Kashyap,
Senior Panel Counsel
-versus-
Dr. Ashok Kumar Panda .... Opp. Party
Mr. Swapna Kumar Ojha,
Advocate
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.K. SAHOO
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SIBO SANKAR MISHRA
ORDER
Order No. 29.10.2025
01. This matter is taken up through Hybrid
arrangement (video conferencing/physical mode).
This matter is taken up through Hybrid arrangement (video conferencing/physical mode).
This writ petition has been filed by the petitioners, Union of India and others, challenging the order dated 09.05.2025 passed by the learned Central Administrative Tribunal, Cuttack Bench, Cuttack (hereinafter "Tribunal") in O.A. No.260/00569 of 2022.
It appears that the opp. party Dr. Ashok Kumar Signature Not Verified Panda filed the O.A. seeking for following relief: Digitally Signed "i) To allow the Original Application. Signed by: RAJESH KUMAR BADHEI Designation: Junior Stenographer Reason: Authentication Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACK Date: 30-Oct-2025 18:53:52
ii) To declare that the exercise of power by issuing Memorandum No.2-1/2021- Page 1 of 11 CCRAS/Vig./1628 dated 27th June, 2022 (Annex.A/6) is ultra vires being opposed to Rule 3-C of the Central Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1964 and law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Medha Kotwal Lela reported in (2013) 1 SCC 297;
iii) And accordingly be pleased to quash disciplinary proceeding initiated against him under Rule 14 of CCS (CC&A) Rules, 1965 vide memorandum No.2-1/2021- CCRAS/Vig./1628 dated 27th June, 2022 (Annex.A/6) and appointment of IO and PO vide order dated 16th November, 2022 (Annex.A/8 & A/9);
iv) And further be pleased to direct the respondents to grant the applicant all service and financial benefits retrospectively;
v) And allow this OA with costs.
vi) To pass any further order/orders as deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case."
The petitioners entered their appearance and Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: RAJESH KUMAR BADHEI Designation: Junior Stenographer filed counter affidavit and the opp. party also filed Reason: Authentication Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACK Date: 30-Oct-2025 18:53:52 the rejoinder affidavit and after considering the pleadings of both the parties and hearing the learned counsel for respective parties and taking into Page 2 of 11 account the ratio laid down in the case of Union of India and others -Vrs.- K.V. Janakiraman reported in 1991 A.I.R. 2010 and other citations of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Coal India Ltd. and others-Vrs.- Saroj Kumar Mishra reported in (2007) 5 SCALE 724 and Union of India and others -Vrs.- Sangram Kesari Nayak reported in AIRONLINE 2007 Supreme Court 108, the learned Tribunal has been pleased to hold as follows:
"10. In the instant case, it is not in dispute that the applicant was entitled to the 3rd financial upgradation w.e.f. 23.01.2021 and charge sheet was issued to the applicant on 27.06.2022. Therefore, the inquiry by the ICC or contemplation of the disciplinary proceedings is hardly of any matter for adopting the sealed cover procedure in view of the well propounded law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court referred to above. In the peculiar facts and circumstances of the matter, this Bench has no hesitation to hold that the keeping Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: RAJESH KUMAR BADHEI Designation: Junior Stenographer the recommendation of the Departmental Reason: Authentication Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACK Date: 30-Oct-2025 18:53:52 Assessment Board is contrary to law and, as a consequence, we hold that the respondents are under obligation to open Page 3 of 11 the sealed cover and act upon the recommendation of the DAB in respect of the applicant and issue appropriate order within a period of 45 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Ordered accordingly."
The main contention raised by the learned counsel for the Union of India is that the Departmental Proceeding, which was initiated against the opp. party was stayed by the learned Tribunal vide order dated 16.12.2022 and since at the instance of the opp. party, the proceeding was stayed, therefore, the learned Tribunal should have considered the same and should not have directed the opening of the seal cover and to act upon the recommendation of the DAB in respect of the opp. party within a period of forty five days from the date of receipt of a copy of the order. Learned counsel further relied upon in the case of Harsh Kumar Sharma, IFS -Vrs.- State of Punjab and another reported in (2017) 4 Supreme Court Cases 366, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as follows:
"14. Office Memorandum dated 14-9- 1992 lays down the circumstances under Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: RAJESH KUMAR BADHEI Designation: Junior Stenographer which the assessment done by DPC is to Reason: Authentication Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACK Date: 30-Oct-2025 18:53:52 be kept in the sealed cover. Three such circumstances which are given are stipulated in Para 2 of the said OM, which Page 4 of 11 reads as under:
"2. At the time of consideration of the cases of government servant for promotion details of government servant in the consideration zone for promotion falling under the following category should be specifically brought to the notice of the Departmental Promotion Committee.
(i) Government servants under suspension.
(ii) Government servants in respect of whom a charge-sheet has been issued and the disciplinary proceedings are pending; and,
(iii) Government servants in respect of whom prosecution for criminal charge is pending.
2.1. The Departmental Promotion Committee shall assess the suitability of government servants coming within the purview of the circumstances mentioned above along with other eligible candidates without taking into consideration the Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: RAJESH KUMAR BADHEI Designation: Junior Stenographer disciplinary case/criminal prosecution Reason: Authentication Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACK Date: 30-Oct-2025 18:53:52 pending. The assessment of DPC including "unfit for promotion" and the grading awarded by it will be kept in a Page 5 of 11 sealed cover. The cover will be superscribed "Findings regarding suitability for promotion to the grade/post of ........ in respect of Shri ...... (name of the government servant). Not to be opened till the terminator of the disciplinary case/criminal prosecution against Shri .....". The proceeding of DPC need only contain the note "The findings are contained in the attached sealed cover". The authority competent to fill the vacancy should be separately advised to fill the vacancy in the higher grade only in an officiating capacity when the findings of DPC in respect of the suitability of a government servant for his promotion are kept in a sealed cover.
2.2. The same procedure outlined in para 2.1 above will be followed by the subsequent Departmental Promotion Committee convened till the disciplinary case/criminal prosecution against the government servant concerned is concluded."
Signature Not Verified Digitally SignedSigned by: RAJESH KUMAR BADHEI Designation: Junior Stenographer
15. It would also be fruitful to quote Para Reason: Authentication Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACK Date: 30-Oct-2025 18:53:52 7 of the OM, which reads as under:
"7. A government servant, who is recommended for promotion by the Page 6 of 11 Departmental Promotion Committee but in whose case any of the circumstances mentioned in Para 2 above arise after the recommendations of DPC are received but before he is actually promoted, will be considered as if his case had been placed in a sealed cover by DPC. He shall not be promoted until he is completely exonerated of the charges against him and the provisions contained in this OM will be applicable in his case also."
24. While it may be so, other contention of the appellant regarding review of his case has adequate merit. OM dated 14-9- 1992 as well as other OMs impress the necessity of ensuring that the disciplinary case/criminal prosecution instituted against any government servant is not unduly prolonged and all efforts to finalise expeditiously the proceedings should be taken so that the need for keeping the case of a government servant in a sealed cover is limited to the barest minimum. It is further provided Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: RAJESH KUMAR BADHEI Designation: Junior Stenographer that the appointing authorities should Reason: Authentication Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACK Date: 30-Oct-2025 18:53:52 review comprehensively the cases of government servants, whose suitability for promotion to a higher grade has been Page 7 of 11 kept in a sealed cover. Such review should be undertaken on the expiry of 6 months from the date of convening the first DPC which had adjudged the suitability and kept the findings in sealed cover. This review is also to be done subsequently as well, after every six months. It is also mandated that the review should, inter alia, cover the progress made in the disciplinary proceedings/criminal prosecution and further measures be taken to expedite the completion."
Learned counsel for the opp. party, on the other hand, submits that the ratio laid in the said decision is not applicable to the factual scenario, inasmuch as, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of K.V. Janakiraman (supra) has laid down the following principles:
"6. .................. The authorities thus are not without a remedy. It was then contended on behalf of the authorities that conclusion nos.1 and 4 of the Full Bench of the Tribunal are inconsistent with each Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: RAJESH KUMAR BADHEI Designation: Junior Stenographer other. Those conclusions are as follows:
Reason: Authentication Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, "(1) Considering for promotion, selection CUTTACK Date: 30-Oct-2025 18:53:52 grade, crossing the efficiency bar or higher scale of pay cannot be withheld Page 8 of 11 merely on the ground of pendency of a disciplinary or criminal proceedings against an official;
xxxx xxxx xxxx (4) The sealed cover procedure can be resorted only after a charge memo is served on the concerned official or the charge sheet filed before the criminal Court and not before.
There is no doubt that there is a seeming contradiction between the two conclusions. But read harmoniously, and that is what the Full Bench has intended, the two conclusions can be reconciled with each other. The conclusion no.1 should be read to mean that the promotion etc. cannot be withheld merely because some disciplinary/criminal proceedings are pending against the employee. To deny that said benefit, they must be at the relevant time pending at the stage when charge-memo/charge sheet has already been issued to the employee. Thus read, there is no Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: RAJESH KUMAR BADHEI Designation: Junior Stenographer inconsistency in the two conclusions. Reason: Authentication Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACK Date: 30-Oct-2025 18:53:52 We, therefore, repel the challenge of the appellant-authorities to the said finding of the Full Bench of the Tribunal."
Page 9 of 11Learned counsel for the opp. party further submits that the process of in situ promotion of the eligible candidates was indeed initiated on 20.05.2022. On that date, a letter was issued to all in charges of Institutes/Centres functioning under the Council requiring the eligible Doctors to submit their work performance report with supporting documents regarding the completion of their five years services as on 31.03.2021. On the same date, the Headquarters forwarded the names of the candidates/employees, who were eligible for such in situ promotion for further verification of their candidature, wherein the opp. party name appeared at Sl. No.6. After verification, the revised eligibility list was circulated on 25.05.2022, wherein the opp. party name had appeared at Sl. No.4. On 30.05.2022, the opp. party and other candidates appeared at the interview as per the CCRAS order dated 20.05.2022. The process initiated for in situ promotion completed on that date. Subsequent thereto on 27.06.2022, the charge sheet was issued to the opp. party under Rule-14 of CCS (CC&A) Rules, 1965. In these factual backgrounds, learned counsel for the opp. party has relied upon the Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: RAJESH KUMAR BADHEI Designation: Junior Stenographer judgment of K.V. Janakiraman (supra) quoted Reason: Authentication Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACK Date: 30-Oct-2025 18:53:52 above and submits that the procedure adopted by the petitioners was directly against the settled principle of law because by the time the charge Page 10 of 11 sheet was issued to the opp. party, the process promotion was already completed, therefore, the seal cover procedure ought not to have been opted for.
In that view of the matter, the learned Tribunal has rightly passed the impugned order thereby directing the petitioner to open the seal cover and to act upon the recommendation of the DAB. Since, the judgment of the learned Tribunal is purely based on the ratio laid by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of K.V. Janakiraman (supra) and the learned Tribunal has rightly treated the sequence of the event that had taken place in the present case, we are not inclined to interfere with the impugned order of the learned Tribunal.
Accordingly, the writ petition being devoid of merits, stands dismissed.
( S.K. Sahoo) Judge ( S.S. Mishra) Judge Rajesh Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: RAJESH KUMAR BADHEI Designation: Junior Stenographer Reason: Authentication Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACK Date: 30-Oct-2025 18:53:52 Page 11 of 11