STATE OF ODISHA & ORS. Vs. SOMNATH SAHOO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The State of Odisha and its officers have filed the present writ application praying for quashing of the order dated 20.7.2015 passed by the learned Odisha Administrative Tribunal, Bhubaneswar in O.A. No.839 of 2014, whereby the learned Tribunal had directed to open the sealed cover in respect of promotion of opp. party No.1 to the rank of Deputy Executive Engineer and Executive Engineer from the date his junior was promoted, if he was otherwise found suitable for such promotion and if there was no other legal impediment. While passing the impugned order dated 20.7.2015, the learned Tribunal had made it clear that the promotion given to the opp. party No.1 shall only be ad hoc, subject to final result of vigilance case/departmental proceeding pending against him and petitioner No.1 is at liberty to pass appropriate order as per rules after conclusion of the said vigilance case/departmental proceeding.

(2.) The case of the petitioners is that the learned Tribunal had illegally given the above direction notwithstanding pendency of Vigilance P.S. Case No.8 of 2007 and Vigilance P.S. Case No.8 of 2008 against him and so also pendency of disciplinary proceeding against opp. party No.1. According to the petitioners, in 2007, Bhubaneswar Vigilance P.S. Case No.8 of 2007 was registered against opp. party No.1 on the allegation of misappropriation of government money towards cost of rice received under F.F.W. and SGRY Scheme without executing any work. Again in 2008, Bhubaneswar Vigilance Case No.8 of 2008 has been registered against opp. party No.1 on the allegation of acquiring disproportionate assets. Further, according to the petitioners in Bhubaneswar Vigilance P.S. Case No.8 of 2007, cognizance of offences was taken by the appropriate court on 5.7.2012. While so, on 6.3.2013, charge memo was issued to opp. party No.1 vide Annexure-3 to the Original Application No.839 of 2014 filed by opp. party No.1, which has been filed as Annexure-1 to the writ application. On receipt of the charge sheet in disciplinary proceeding on 3.6.2013, opp. party No.1 has filed his written statement on defence vide Annexure-4 attached to O.A. No.839 of 2014. During pendency of the disciplinary proceeding, on 30.10.2013, learned Vigilance Court, Bhubaneswar took cognizance of offence under Section 13 (2) read with Section 1 (c) (d) of the P.C. Act, 1988 and Sections 409/468/417 of I.P.C. against the opp. party No.1 and others in T.R. Case No.44 of 2012. On 3.12.2013, the Enquiry Officer was appointed in order to enquire into the allegation made in the charge memo dated 6.3.2013. In such background, on 21.2.2014, Departmental Promotion Committee sat to consider the case of Assistant Executive Engineer for promotion to the post of Deputy Executive Engineer. According to the petitioners, on account of pendency of two Vigilance/Criminal Proceedings and the departmental proceeding though the case of opp. party No.1 was considered for promotion, however, the same was put in sealed cover. Again on 22.2.2014, D.P.C. sat to consider the case of promotion to the post of Deputy Executive Engineer to Executive Engineer. Again on account of pendency of criminal proceeding as well as disciplinary proceeding, the case of opp. party No.1 was considered and put in sealed cover. When the juniors were given promotion to the rank of Deputy Executive Engineer and Asst. Executive Engineer; on 21.3.2014, the opp. party No.1 filed representation to petitioner No.1 for promoting him to the rank of Deputy Executive Engineer and Executive Engineer from the date when his juniors got promotion. Sometime thereafter, opp. party No.1 has filed O.A. No.839 of 2014 before the learned Administrative Tribunal, Bhubaneswar with prayer to open the sealed cover and to give him promotion to the rank of Deputy Executive Engineer and Executive Engineer from the date his junior Lingaraj Gouda got promotion, if he was found suitable by D.P.C. He further prayed for a direction to petitioners to hold a review D.P.C. to consider his case for promotion to the rank of Deputy Executive Engineer and Executive Engineer without taking into account the pendency of vigilance Case and disciplinary proceeding and to allow him all financial and consequential service benefits. As indicated earlier, the learned Tribunal vide its order dated 20.7.2015 disposed of O.A. No.839 of 2014 directing the petitioners to open the sealed cover in respect of promotion of opp. party No.1 to the rank of Deputy Executive Engineer and Executive Engineer from the date when his juniors were promoted, if he has been otherwise found suitable for such promotion if there is no other legal impediment. Challenging the same, the present writ application has been filed.

(3.) Mr. Sahoo, learned Addl. Government Advocate submitted that in passing such orders, the learned Tribunal has wrongly relied on the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Punjab and others v. Chaman Lal Goyal reported in (1995) 2 SCC 570 , which has no application to the present case. In other words, Mr. Sahoo, learned Addl. Government Advocate contended that the above noted decision is factually distinguishable.