Page 1 of 6. IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK WP(C) No. 492 of 2026 Pravas Kumar Pradhan ..... Petitioner Mr. U.C. Mohanty, Advocate -versus- State of Odisha & Ors. ..... Opposite Parties Mr. S.P. Das, ASC CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY ORDER 30.01.2026 Order No. 03 1. This matter is taken up through hybrid mode. 2. Pursuant to order dtd.12.01.2026, learned Addl. Standing Counsel produced the instruction provided by the Department vide letter dtd.22.01.2026 with service of copy on the learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner in Court. The same be kept in record. 3. Heard Mr. U.C. Mohanty, learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner and Mr. S.P. Das, learned Addl. Standing Counsel appearing for the Opp. Parties. 4. The present writ petition has been filed inter alia with the following prayer:- “In the aforesaid circumstances, it is humbly prayed that this Hon'ble Court may graciously be pleased to admit this writ application and issue a RULE NISI calling upon the Opposite Parties to show cause as to why this writ application shall not be allowed and if the Opposite Parties failed to show cause or show insufficient cause, the said Rule may be made absolute and on hearing the parties through their counsel, this Hon'ble Court be further pleased to:- Page 2 of 6. i) Issue appropriate Writ/Writs in holding that the Part of the Office dated 11.09.2025 under Annexure-8 issued by the Opp. Party No. 2 in posting him as Additional Director, Canal, Bhubaneswar/S.E instead of C.C.E/Additional Chief Engineer/Director is illegal, arbitrary, unreasonable & violative of principle of natural justice as well as the Article- 311 of Constitution of India as such quash the same and direct the Opp. Parties to take necessary steps for issuance of fresh Order appointing the Petitioner as C.C.E/Additional Chief Engineer/Director. ii) This Hon'ble Court be further pleased to pass such other appropriate Writ/Writs, direction/directions, order/orders as would be deem fit and proper in favour of the petitioner. And for which act of kindness the Petitioner as in duty bound shall ever pray.” 5. It is contended that even though Petitioner on being recommended by the DPC was found eligible to get the benefit of promotion and accordingly notification dtd.31.07.2024 under Annexure-2 was issued by the Department, but prior to his relieve and joining in the promotional post in terms of such notification, Petitioner since was arrested in a vigilance proceeding on 3rd August, 2024, he could not join in the said promotional post. Not only that because of his arrest and remaining in custody in the vigilance proceeding on 03.08.2024, Petitioner vide office order dtd.12.08.2024 under Annexure-3 was placed under suspension w.e.f.03.08.2024. 5.1. However, it is contended that Petitioner subsequently was released on bail and basing on the clearance issued by the vigilance department, Petitioner though was reinstated vide order dtd.11.09.2025 under Annexure-8, but he was never allowed to join in his promotional post in terms of notification dtd.31.07.2024. 5.2. It is contended that Petitioner claiming such benefit of joining in the promotional post though made various representations under Page 3 of 6. Annexure-9 & 10, but the same when were not considered, the present writ petition was filed inter alia with the prayer as indicated hereinabove. 5.3. Learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner contended that since by the time the DPC recommended his claim with issuance of the notification dtd.31.07.2024, there was no proceeding pending in the eye of law and he was only arrested in a vigilance proceeding on 03.08.2024, where no charge sheet has yet been filed, there was no bar on the part of Opp. Party No. 1 in allowing the Petitioner to join in the promotional post in terms of notification dtd.31.07.2024. It is contended that Petitioner since is going to retire tomorrow (31.01.2026), unless he is allowed to join in the promotional, he will suffer irreparable loss and injury. In support of his submission reliance was placed to a decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Union of India & Ors. Vs. Doly Loyi (Civil Appeal No(s). 8387 of 2013. Hon’ble Apex Court in Para 24 to 28 of the said judgment has held as follows: “24. Considering the above position, the disciplinary/criminal proceedings can be said to be initiated against the employee only when a charge memo is issued to the employee in a disciplinary proceeding or a charge-sheet for a criminal prosecution is filed in the competent Court. The sealed cover procedure is to be resorted to only after issuance of the charge-memo/charge-sheet is issued. The pendency of investigation and grant of prosecution sanction will not be sufficient to enable the authorities to adopt the sealed cover procedure. 25. In view of the aforesaid legal position, the crucial aspect requiring examination is as to whether the prosecution for criminal charge was pending against the respondent when the DPC meeting was held. 26. It is not in dispute that the sanction to prosecute the respondent was granted on 2nd June, 2006 and the charge sheet was filed by CBI, after completion of investigation on 25th Page 4 of 6. October, 2008, whereas the DPC to consider the promotion of Additional Commissioners of Income Tax was convened on 22nd February, 2007, wherein the sealed cover procedure was adopted qua the respondent. It is thus clear that the charge sheet against the respondent was filed well after the meeting of the DPC was convened. Hence, it could not be said that the prosecution for a criminal charge was pending against the respondent when the DPC was convened. Therefore, the move on the part of DPC to resort to the sealed cover procedure was unjustified and unsustainable on facts and in law. 27. Resultantly, we have no hesitation in holding that the impugned judgment of the High Court dated 26th April, 2013 is based on apropos consideration of facts and law and hence the same does not warrant interference. 28. The ‘Sealed Cover’ wherein the assessment of the respondent was considered by the DPC was presented to the Court by learned counsel for the appellant and was opened. The letter shows that the DPC assessed the respondent to be ‘FIT’ for promotion. Consequential steps in light of the above recommendations shall follow.” 6. Basing on the instruction learned Addl. Standing Counsel contended that though there is no dispute that Petitioner was recommended by the DPC to get the benefit of promotion, which was notified vide notification dtd.31.07.2024 under Annexure-2, but prior to his joining in the promotional post, since Petitioner was implicated in a vigilance proceeding and was arrested on 03.08.2024 in relation to Balasore Vigilance P.S. Case No. 9 dtd.03.08.2024, Petitioner vide order dtd.12.08.2024 under Annexure-3 was placed under suspension w.e.f..03.08.2024. 6.1. It is contended that subsequently a disciplinary proceeding has also been initiated against the Petitioner vide Memorandum dtd.10.03.2025 for his involvement in the aforesaid Vigilance P.S. Page 5 of 6. Case. It is further contended that after his release on bail and taking necessary clearance from the G.A. (Vigilance) Department, Cuttack and upon obtaining views of the G.A. & P.G. Department, the suspension Review Committee in its meeting held on 13.06.2025, allowed the Petitioner to join in his former post. Petitioner accordingly was reinstated vide order dtd.11.09.2025 under Annexure-8. It is contended that since prior to his joining in the promotional post in terms of notification dtd.31.07.2024 Petitioner was implicated in the vigilance proceeding and a disciplinary proceeding has also been initiated against him on 10.03.2025, Petitioner is not eligible and entitled to get the benefit of notification dt.31.07.2024. 7. Having heard learned counsel appearing for the Parties and considering the submission made, this Court finds that Petitioner while in service, vide notification dtd.31.07.2204 was promoted to the rank of Addl. Chief Engineer (Civil) basing on the recommendation made by the DPC. It is found that prior to his joining in the promotional post, since Petitioner was arrested on 03.08.2024 in relation to Balasore Vigilance P.S. Case No. 9 dtd.03.08.2024, Petitioner could not join in the promotional post. 7.1. However, because of his arrest and remaining in custody, Petitioner was placed under suspension w.e.f.03.08.2024 vide office order dtd.12.08.2024 under Annexure-3. Subsequently, a departmental proceeding has also been initiated against the Petitioner vide memorandum dtd.10.03.2025 under Annexure-4. But on the face of such pendency of the vigilance proceeding as well as the departmental proceeding, basing on the no objection issued by the G.A. (Vigilance) Department, Cuttack on 08.04.2025, the Suspension Page 6 of 6. Review Committee held on 13.06.2025 decided to reinstate the Petitioner. Accordingly, Petitioner was reinstated vide order dtd.11.09.2025 under Annexure-8. 7.2. However, claim of the Petitioner to get the benefit of joining in his promotional post in terms of notification dtd.31.07.2024 was not entertained and accordingly the present writ petition was filed with the prayer to allow the Petitioner to join in his promotional post. 7.3. Considering the facts involved in the present case and the decision Doly Loyi so cited (supra), it is the view of this Court that by the time the DPC recommended the claim of the Petitioner with issuance of the notification dtd.31.07.2204 under Annexure-2, since no proceeding was pending against the Petitioner in the eye of law, it is the view of this Court that there is no difficulty on the Party No. 1 in allowing the Petitioner to join in his promotional post in terms of said notification. Therefore, this Court while disposing the writ petition, directs Opp. Party Nos. 1 & 2 to allow the Petitioner to join in his promotional post prior to his retirement, which falls due on 31st January, 2026 in terms of notification dt.31.07.2024. 7.4. Learned Addl. Standing Counsel is also directed to intimate the authority with regard to passing of the present order for its compliance. 8. The writ petition accordingly stands disposed of. (BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY) Judge Sneha