Disposed¶38

Jyotirmaya Patel v. State of Odisha

Orissa HC17 Feb 2025WA/2764/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Sealed cover promotion; exoneration from all charges by Disciplinary Authority (order dated 16-12-2019); DPC kept recommendation in sealed cover due to pendency of departmental proceeding (04-03-2013); writ appeal reversing single Judge dismissal dated 16-08-2024; respondent no.2 directed to open sealed cover and give effect from recommended date; delay of 14 days condoned; High Court of Orissa at Cuttack; W.A. No. 2764 of 2024; Jyotirmaya Patel v. State of Odisha and another; precedents referred: (2007) 5 SCC 425; (1991) 4 SCC 109.

What did the court decide?

Respondent no.2 to open the sealed cover and give effect to its contents from the date as per the recommendation; appellant to communicate certified copy of the order, with effect to be given within four weeks of the communication. ¶38

Jyotirmaya Patel Vs State of Odisha — Orissa HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶38

Issue for consideration

Whether the exonerated appellant's sealed-cover promotion recommendation was required to be acted upon, warranting interference with the impugned judgment that dismissed the writ petition.

¶32

Court's answer

Impugned judgment reversed in appeal; respondent no.2 directed to open the sealed cover and give effect to its contents from the date as per the recommendation, the sealed cover not being in the Court record, with the appellant to communicate a certified copy of the order and effect to be given within four weeks of the communication.

¶36

Ratio / Principle

Causes shown for the reported delay of 14 days accepted in appreciation of the fair stand taken on behalf of the State; delay condoned, appeal admitted, and the application disposed of.

¶27

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Division Bench of the High Court of Orissa at Cuttack (Arindam Sinha, Acting Chief Justice, and M.S. Sahoo, Judge) disposed of W.A. No. 2764 of 2024 (Jyotirmaya Patel v. State of Odisha and another) on 17th February, 2025. The appellant's promotion recommendation had been directed to be kept in sealed cover by the Departmental Promotion Committee proceeding of 4th March, 2013 owing to pendency of a departmental proceeding; by order dated 16th December, 2019 the Disciplinary Authority exonerated the Delinquent Officer from all charges. The learned single Judge's judgment dated 16th August, 2024 dismissing the writ petition was reversed in appeal; respondent no.2 was directed to open the sealed cover and give effect to its contents from the date as per the recommendation, effect to be given within four weeks of communication of a certified copy by the appellant. Delay of 14 days was condoned and the appeal admitted. Counsel referred to Union of India v. A.N. Mohanan (2007) 5 SCC 425 and Union of India v. K.V. Jankiraman (1991) 4 SCC 109; the State placed reliance on an inquiry report dated 4th February, 2019 suggesting the delinquent officer may be warned for negligence in government duty.

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

¶2

W.A. No. 2764 of 2024

¶3

and

¶4

I.A. No.7180 of 2024

¶5

Jyotirmaya Patel

¶6

…. Appellant

¶7

-Versus-

¶8

…. State of Odisha and another Respondents

¶9

Advocates appeared in this case :

¶10

For Appellant : Mr. Jayanta Rath, Sr. Advocate

¶11

For Respondents : Miss. A. Dash, Addl. Standing Counsel

¶12

CORAM:

¶13

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARINDAM SINHA,

¶14

THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE

¶15

AND

¶16

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE M.S. SAHOO

¶17

J U D G M E N T

¶18

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Date of hearing and judgment: 17^th February, 2025

¶19

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

¶20

ARINDAM SINHA, ACJ.

¶21

1. Mr. Rath, learned senior advocate appears on behalf of applicant-appellant and submits, the appeal be admitted on condoning

¶22

reported delay of 14 days. Cause has been shown in the application.

¶23

Page 1 of 5

¶24

2. Miss Dash, learned advocate, Additional Standing Counsel

¶25

appears on behalf of State and in fairness does not oppose the application.

¶26

3. Perused causes shown. We accept them in appreciation of fair

¶27

stand taken on behalf of State. The delay is condoned and the appeal admitted. The application is disposed of.

¶28

4. Appellant had sought promotion in terms of the recommendation kept in sealed cover. Mr. Rath submits, by impugned judgment dated 16^th August, 2024, though the learned single Judge appreciated the law but erred on facts in dismissing the writ petition. He draws attention to order dated 16^th December, 2019 made by the Disciplinary Authority. His client was exonerated. Concluding paragraph from the order is reproduced below.

¶29

“ Now therefore , after careful consideration of the statement of imputation of misconduct, written statement of defence, findings of the Inquiring Officer and representation submitted by the Delinquent Officer, the charges leveled against the Delinquent Officer not being proved as per the Inquiry Report of the Inquiring Officer,

¶30

WA No.2764 of 2024 Page 2 of 5

¶31

the Delinquent Officer is hereby exonerated from all charges.”

¶32

5. He submits, perusal of paragraphs 7 to 9 in impugned judgment will reveal that there was correct appreciation of declaration the law made by the Supreme Court. In Union of India v. A.N. Mohanan reported in (2007) 5 SCC 425 facts were, an employee’s recommendation was kept in sealed cover because a disciplinary proceeding was ongoing. The proceeding resulted in minor punishment of censure. In such situation it was said, the findings in the sealed cover are not to be acted upon. The learned single Judge then went on to consider another judgment of the Supreme Court in Union of India v. K.V. Jankiraman reported in (1991) 4 SCC 109 . The Supreme Court, in that case, considered that when an employee is completely exonerated, meaning thereby that he is not found blame worthy in the least and is not visited with the penalty even of censure, he has to be given the benefit of salary of the higher post along with other benefits from the date on which he would have normally been promoted but for the disciplinary/criminal proceeding. He submits, this was a clear case of his client having been exonerated. Recommendation in the sealed cover, for his promotion, was required to be acted upon. He seeks interference in appeal.

¶33

WA No.2764 of 2024 Page 3 of 5

¶34

6. Miss Dash relies on inquiry report dated 4^th February, 2019. She places the concluding part in it and lays emphasis, there was suggestion that the delinquent officer (DO) may be warned for negligence in government duty.

¶35

7. It appears from the writ file, proceeding by the Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC) was held on 4^th March, 2013. Inter alia, petitioner’s recommendation was directed to be kept in sealed cover due to pendency of departmental proceeding. As aforesaid, subsequently petitioner was exonerated by the Disciplinary Authority (DA) on order dated 16^th December, 2019. On query we have ascertained that the sealed cover was not opened though called for by the learned single Judge.

¶36

8. Impugned judgment is reversed in appeal. Respondent no.2 is directed to open the sealed cover and give effect to its contents from the date as per the recommendation. We have ascertained that the sealed cover is not in the Court record. As such appellant will communicate certified copy of this order to respondent no.2 and effect of it be given within four weeks of the communication.

¶37

WA No.2764 of 2024 Page 4 of 5

¶38

9. The appeal is disposed of.

¶39

(Arindam Sinha) Acting Chief Justice

¶40