Chandan Panigrahi Vs Union of India

2. Pursuant to order dated 08.09.2025, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Paradip Port Authority produced the relevant file showing the refusal made by the Central Vigilance Commission in Court.

¶15

3. Heard learned counsels appearing for the parties.

¶16

4. Since the issue involved in both the Writ Petitions are connected to each other, both the matters are heard analogously and disposed of by the present common order.

¶17

// 2 //

¶18

5. W.P.(C) No.5156 of 2025 was filed by the petitioner inter alia seeking a direction on the Paradip Port Trust Authority to issue the Vigilance clearance in favour of the petitioner for consideration of his application in terms of advertisement issued on 24.10.2024 under Annexure-8 series by the authorities of Deendayal Port Authority-O.P. No.4. Vide the said advertisement, authorities of Deendayal Port Authority invited applications to fill up the post of Chief Mechanical Engineer.

¶19

5.1. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner contended that without any reason when vigilance clearance was not issued and petitioner could not participate in the selection process pursuant to the advertisement issued by the authorities of Deendayal Port Authority, petitioner being aggrieved approached this Court. It is accordingly contended that petitioner be issued with the vigilance clearance and thereby enabling him to participate in the selection process pursuant to Annexure-8. It is also contended that because of the interim order passed by this Court on 19.02.2025, selection process has not been finalized.

¶20

5. 2. Similarly, W.P.(C) No.20469 of 2025 was filed by the petitioner challenging initiation of the minor penalty proceeding so initiated with malafide intention vide Memorandum dated 16.07.2025 under Annexure6. It is contended that because of the challenge and

¶21

Page 2 of 5

¶22

// 3 //

¶23

prayer made in W.P.(C) No.5156 of 2025, the proceeding was initiated against the petitioner in order to deprive him to participate in the selection process for the post in question. Accordingly, it is contended that the impugned proceeding is required to be quashed.

¶24

6. Mr. A. Das, learned Senior Counsel appearing for Paradip Port Authority on the other hand contended that prior to issuance of the advertisement by the authorities of Deendayal Port Authority on 24.10.2014 under Annexure-8, since vide Annexure-B/3 letter dated 14.08.2024, Central Vigilance Commission had directed the Paradip Port Authority to initiate a minor penalty proceeding against the petitioner for his alleged involvement on certain issues, because of such letter issued by the CVC, no vigilance clearance was issued in favour of the petitioner.

¶25

6. 1. Subsequently, while issuing a clarification on the request made by the Paradip Port Trust Authority, the CVC vide letter dated 23/26.05.2025 reiterating the direction contained in the earlier communication issued on 14.08.2024, directed to initiate a minor penalty proceeding against the petitioner.

¶26

6. 2. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the O.P. No.2 accordingly contended that in view of the direction issued by the CVC, minor penalty proceeding has been initiated against the petitioner vide Memorandum dated 16.07.2025 under Annexure-6, which is under

¶27

Page 3 of 5

¶28

// 4 //

¶29

challenge in W.P.(C) No.20469 of 2025. It is also contended that in view of the intimation given by the CVC vide letter dated 14.08.2024 under Annexure-B/3 and further clarification issued vide letter dated 23/26.05.2025, Vigilance clearance cannot be issued in favour of the petitioner, unless and until the proceeding so initiated now is disposed of in accordance with law.

¶30

6. 3. It is however fairly contended by Mr. A. Das, learned Senior Counsel appearing for Paradip Port Trust that, since it is a minor penalty proceeding, after receipt of the reply to the charges, the same can be disposed of within a reasonable time.

¶31

7 . Having heard learned counsel for the parties, considering the submissions made and taking into account the communications issued by the CVC on 14.08.2024 under Annexure-B/3 and further communication issued on 23/26.05.2025 so found from the relevant file produced before this Court today, it is the view of this Court that on the face of such intimation made by the CVC, no Vigilance clearance can be issued in favour of the petitioner enabling the petitioner to take part in the selection process pursuant to the advertisement issued on 24.10.2024 under Annexure-8 in W.P.(C) No.5156 of 2025. The Writ Petition in W.P.(C) No.5156 of 2025 accordingly

¶32

Page 4 of 5

¶33

// 5 //

¶34

fails and disposed of with vacation of the interim order dated 17.02.2025.

¶35

7 .1. However, since in terms of the direction issued by the CVC, a minor penalty proceeding has already been initiated vide Memorandum dated 16.07.2025, this Court while disposing the Writ Petition in W.P.(C) No.20469 of 2025, permits the petitioner to file his reply as undertaken by the learned Sr. Counsel for the Petitioner, within a period of 7(seven) days hence. On such receipt of the reply, O.P. No.2 is directed to dispose of the proceeding by giving a personal hearing to the petitioner within a period of 4 (four) weeks thereafter in accordance with law.

¶36

8 . Both the Writ Petitions stand disposed of accordingly.

¶37

Relevant file produced in Court is handover to the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Paradip Port Trust in Court today itself.

¶38

(Biraja Prasanna Satapathy) Judge

¶39

Basudev

¶40

Signature Not Verified

¶41

Digitally Signed Signed by: BASUDEV SWAIN Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, C utta ck Date: 24-Sep-2025 11:09:36