Disposed¶29

Abhimanyu Panda v. State of Odisha

Orissa HC11 Mar 2025WP(C)/674/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

WP(C) No.674 of 2025, High Court of Orissa, Aditya Kumar Mohapatra J., 11.03.2025 — OAS officer denied promotion consideration after disciplinary proceeding ended in censure; writ disposed with mandamus-style direction to State (OP No.1) to consider promotion within six weeks and communicate decision within one week; Rule 15 OCS(CCA) Rule, 1962; prematurity objection rejected in effect.

What did the court decide?

Writ Petition disposed of at the admission stage with a direction to Opposite Party No.1 to consider the Petitioner's case for promotion to the next higher post in accordance with law within six weeks from communication of the order, and to communicate any decision so taken to the Petitioner within one week thereof. ¶29

Abhimanyu Panda Vs State of Odisha — Orissa HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK WP(C) No.674 of 2025

¶2

Abhimanyu Panda

¶3

..... Petitioner

¶4

Represented By Adv. - Jajati Keshari Khuntia

¶5

-versus-

¶6

1) State Of Odisha

¶7

1. Secy., Panchayati Raj And Drinking

¶8

Water

¶9

Chief Development Officer Cum Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad, Jagatsinghpur

¶10

.....

¶11

Opposite Parties

¶12

Represented By Adv. – Ms.Sasmita Nayak, ASC

¶13

CORAM:

¶14

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADITYA KUMAR MOHAPATRA

ORDER

11.03.2025

Order No.

02.

This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual /Physical Mode).

¶20

Heard learned counsel for the Petitioner as well as learned Additional Standing Counsel for the State-Opposite Parties. Perused the writ application as well as the documents annexed thereto.

¶21

The present Writ Petition has been filed by the Petitioner with a prayer for a direction to the Opposite Parties to dispose of the Disciplinary Proceeding against the Petitioner under Annexure-2 within a stipulated period of time and for a further direction to the Opposite Parties to give promotion to the Petitioner to the higher post with consequential service and

¶22

Page 1 of 3.

¶23

financial benefits.

¶24

Learned counsel for the Petitioner at the outset contended that while the Petitioner was initially appointed as Sub-Registrar, Dhamnagar and joined in service on 06.10.1999. While working as such, the Petitioner was promoted to the rank of OAS in the year 2016 and accordingly he was posted as Tahsildar, Bangiriposhi under Mayurbhanj district. While working as Tahsildar, Bangiriposhi, the Petitioner was placed under suspension on 23.02.2021. Accordingly, a Disciplinary Proceeding was initiated against the Petitioner vide Memorandum of Charge dated 14.03.2022 under Rule 15 of OCS(CCA) Rule, 1962. The aforesaid proceeding was initiated in the year 2022 and the same has been concluded with a censure-order against the Petitioner. Learned counsel for the Petitioner further contended that although the Disciplinary Proceeding has been concluded with the aforesaid order of censure, however the case of the Petitioner has not been considered for promotion to the next higher post. Being aggrieved by such inaction of the Opposite Parties, the petitioner has approached this Court by filing the present Writ Petition.

¶25

Learned Additional Standing Counsel for the State on the other hand contended that it is a fact that the Petitioner is facing a Disciplinary Proceeding and such proceeding has come to an end by censuring the Petitioner. He further contended that the case of the Petitioner for promotion to the next higher post shall be considered in accordance with the Rules. In such view of the matter, learned Additional Sanding

¶26

Page 2 of 3.

¶27

Counsel for the State submitted that the Writ Petition is premature and the same should not be entertained by this Court.

¶28

Having heard learned counsels for the respective parties, on careful analysis of their submissions and further keeping in view the factual background of the present Writ Petition as well as keeping in view the limited nature of grievance involved in the present Writ Petition, this Court deems it proper to dispose of the Writ Petition at the stage of admission by directing the Opposite Party No.1 to consider the case of the Petitioner for promotion to the next higher post, in accordance with law, within a period of six weeks from the date of communication of this order. Any decision taken by Opposite Party No.1 with regard to promotion of the Petitioner shall be communicated to the Petitioner within a week from the date of taking such decision.

¶29