IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P. (C) No. 4621 of 2020 Dibyalochan Behera …. Petitioner Mr. B.K.Behera-1, Advocate -Versus- State of Odisha & Others …. Opposite Parties Mr. S.K. Brahma, ASC CORAM: MR. JUSTICE R.K. PATTANAIK Order No. ORDER 18.05.2025 5. 1. Heard learned counsel for the respective parties. 2. Instant writ petition is filed by the petitioner challenging the impugned order dated 1st February, 2020 as at Annexure-6 and to direct the opposite parties and in particular, opposite party Nos. 2 & 3 to promote him to the rank of Inspector of Police as per the promotion lists dated 26th May, 2016 and dated 26th June, 2019 under Annexures-2 & 5 respectively on the grounds stated. 3. Mr. Behera, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has been denied promotion by not considering his case during CSB held on 25th May, 2016. It is submitted that the promotion was allowed in respect of others vide Annexure-2 and the CSB was held a day before i.e. on 25th May, 2016 and it has been disallowed as against him for pendency of criminal case. The submission is that mere pendency of a criminal case without a chargesheet and order of cognizance in respect of the offences against the petitioner, his promotion to the next higher rank could not have been withheld and hence, necessary direction in that regard must have to follow suit. Referring to Annexure-6, it is further submitted by Mr. Behera, learned counsel that the case of the petitioner is kept in a sealed cover which is impermissible in view of Annexure-7 series. Referring to the Circular dated 15th January, 1999 i.e. Anneuxre-7 series and the clarification issued by the G.A. Department, Government of Odisha dated 28th May, 2012 annexed thereto. Mr. Behera, learned counsel would submit that the exercise which has been undertaken during the time of CSB adopting a sealed cover procedure in absence of any such order of cognizance in the criminal case is not permissible, hence, therefore, the impugned order dated 1st February, 2020 i.e. Annexure-6 is liable to be interfered with and set aside followed by consequential directions issued. 4. Referring to the counter affidavit filed by the State through opposite party Nos. 2 & 3, it is submitted to the Court by Mr. Brahma, learned ASC that the petitioner was not given promotion but his case was kept in a sealed cover at the time of CSB held in 2016 for being involved in a criminal case, hence, the decision as per Annexure-6 is perfectly justified and in accordance with law. 5. In course of hearing, Mr. Behera, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the F.I.R. was lodged on 9th June, 2015, whereas, the CSB for promotion was held on 25th May, 2016 and the departmental action was initiated on 22nd June, 2019. It is further submitted that the chargesheet in the criminal case was filed in the year 2023 and therefore, by the time, the promotion was due and for consideration in the CSB, there was no chargesheet filed, hence, in view of the decision of the Apex Court in Union of India & Others Vrs. K.V. Jankiraman & Others (1991)4 SCC 109, it was for the authority concerned to consider promotion of the petitioner instead of following the sealed cover procedure. 6. It is not in denial by the State that by the time of CSB, no chargesheet had been filed. According to Mr. Behera, learned counsel for the petitioner, the chargesheet is filed long after the F.I.R. was lodged and the departmental action was initiated. It has not been in dispute that neither there was any chargesheet filed nor any cognizance order by a criminal court at the time when the CSB was held on 26th May, 2016 and therefore, in view of the decision in K.V. Jankiraman (supra) and keeping in view the Circular at Annexure-7 series, the Court reaches at a conclusion that it was not right and justified on the part of the authority concerned to follow the sealed cover procedure. Only if there is a chargesheet filed and duly served on the delinquent and there is a cognizance order by a criminal court under such circumstances alone sealed cover procedure is to be followed as made to understand from Annexure-7 series and in such view of the matter, the Court is in no hesitation to accept the argument advanced by Mr. Behera, learned counsel with a conclusion that the case of the petitioner for promotion was to be considered in the year 2016 and therefore, the impugned decision by order dated 1st February, 2020 vide Annexure-6 cannot be upheld. 7. Accordingly, it is ordered. Page 4 of 4 8. In the result, the writ petition stands allowed. As a necessary corollary, the impugned order at Annexure-6 by opposite party No.2 is hereby set aside with a direction to open the sealed cover vis-à-vis the petitioner to consider his promotion to the next higher rank by a decision thereon at the earliest preferably within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 9. Issue urgent certified copy as per rules. (R. K. Pattanaik) Judge kabita