IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK W.P.(C) No.5559 of 2026 In the matter of an application under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. ……………… Sangram Keshari Nayak …. Petitioner -versus- State of Odisha and Others …. Opposite Parties For Petitioner : Mr. J.K. Rath, Sr. Advocate For Opp. Parties : Mr. A. Tripathy, AGA PRESENT: THE HONBLE JUSTICE BIRAJA PRASANNA SATAPATHY --------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Date of Hearing:20.04.2026 and Date of Judgment:19.06.2026 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Biraja Prasanna Satapathy, J. 1. Heard Mr. J.K. Rath, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr. A. Tripathy, learned Addl. Govt. Advocate for the State. 2. The present Writ Petition has been filed inter alia challenging order dated 21.02.2026, so passed by O.P. p. 2 p. 2 No.2 under Annexure-6. Vide the said order, benefit of promotion extended in favour of the petitioner to the post of Section Officer was cancelled and petitioner was reverted to the post of Senior Revenue Assistant. 3. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner contended that since benefit of promotion to the rank of Section Officer was extended in favour of the petitioner basing on the decision taken by the DPC in its proceeding dated 31.07.2023, with issuance of the consequential order under Annexure-5 series, the same could not have been withdrawn/cancelled by reverting petitioner to the rank of Senior Revenue Assistant vide the impugned order dated 21.01.2026 under Annexure-6. 3.1. It is also contended that since persons similarly situated on the face of pendency of Criminal/Departmental Proceeding have got the benefit of promotion, only on the ground that a Vigilance Proceeding is pending against the petitioner basing on the decision taken in the Review DPC held on p. 3 p. 3 16.01.2026, no such order of reversion could have been passed, so passed vide the impugned order dated 21.01.2026 under Annexure-6. 3.2. It is accordingly contended that the impugned order so passed by Opp. Party No.2 under Annexure-6, requires interference of this Court. 4. Considering the stand taken in the writ petition, this Court passed the following order on 20.02.2026:- “1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual/Physical) Mode. 2. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 3. While assailing the impugned order of reversion so passed under Annexure-6 by Opp. Party No.2, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner contended that basing on the recommendation made by the DPC under the Chairmanship of Collector, Angul-Opp. Party No.2, petitioner got the benefit of promotion vide order dated 31.07.2023 under Annexure-5 series. 3.1. But on the ground that a Vigilance Proceeding was pending by then, the order of promotion has been cancelled by reverting the petitioner to his previous post. 4. It is contended that since the DPC recommended the claim of the petitioner in the year 2023 and such a proceeding was pending against the petitioner was there from the year 2012, the ground on which the impugned order of reversion has been passed, is not sustainable in the eye of law. It is also contended that petitioner is continuing on medical leave after being communicated with the impugned order under Annexure-6. 5. Considering the submission made, this Court directs learned Addl. Standing Counsel to produce the DPC recommendation dated 31.07.2023, so reflected in p. 4 p. 4 order dated 31.07.2023 under Annexure-5 series on the next date. 6. As requested, list this matter in the week commencing 09.03.2026. (Biraja Prasanna Satapathy) Judge 02. I.A. No.3087 of 2026 1. Till the next date, no coercive action be taken against the petitioner.” 5. Pursuant to the order so passed, copy of the proceeding of the DPC dated 31.07.2023 was produced by the learned State Counsel, so provided by the office of Opp. Party No.2 vide letter dated 02.03.2026. This Court after going through the proceeding of the DPC dated 31.07.2023, found that since in the relevant column, nothing was indicated with regard to pendency of any Disciplinary/Criminal proceeding against the petitioner, petitioner’s name was recommended for his promotion to the rank of Section Officer. This Court accordingly passed the following order on 13.03.2026:- “1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Mode. 2. Heard learned counsel appearing for the parties. 3. Pursuant to order 20.02.2026, learned Addl. Govt. Advocate produced the recommendation of the D.P.C. p. 5 p. 5 dt.31.07.2023 along with the Service Book of the Petitioner in Court. The same be kept on record. Copy of the recommendation of the DPC is provided to the learned Sr. Counsel appearing for the Petitioner in Court. 4. On the request made by Mr. J. Rath, learned Sr. Counsel, list this matter in the week commencing 30.03.2026. 5. Interim order passed earlier shall continue till the next date.” 6. Basing on the order passed by this Court on 13.03.2026, a reply affidavit was filed by the petitioner. Basing on the stand taken in the reply affidavit, it is contended that since persons similarly situated with pendency of Departmental and Criminal Proceedings against them, have been extended with the benefit of promotion, on the face of pendency of a Vigilance Proceeding against the petitioner, he could not have been reverted vide the impugned order after being extended with the benefit vide order dated 31.07.2023 under Annexure-5 series, basing on the recommendation of the DPC dated 31.07.2023. 6.1. It is also contended that prior to passing of the impugned order, petitioner was issued with a notice on 29.11.2025 by Opp. Party No.2 and in the said show- cause, petitioner was held liable for violation of Rule-3 p. 6 p. 6 of the Odisha Government Servants’ Conduct Rules, 1959, for not disclosing the pendency of the Vigilance Proceeding in Cuttack Vigilance P.S. Case No.63 of 2012. 6.2. It is further contended that even though petitioner submitted his reply to the above notice on 10.12.2025 under Annexure-8, but without taking a decision on the show-cause so issued, the impugned order of reversion was passed by Opp. Party No.2 on 21.01.2026 under Annexure-6, basing on the recommendation of the Review DPC dtd.16.01.2026. 6.3. It is also contended that even though the Vigilance Proceeding was initiated in the year 2012 but since no progress is being made to the said proceeding on the ground of its mere pendnecy, benefit of promotion extended in favour of the petitioner in the year 2023, could not have been withdrawn by reverting the petitioner vide the impugned order dated 21.01.2026 under Annexure-6. p. 7 p. 7 7. To the submission made by learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner, learned Addl. Govt. Advocate contended that after his implication in the Vigilance Proceeding in Cuttack Vigilance P.S. Case No.63 of 2012, a Departmental Proceeding was also initiated against the petitioner vide Memorandum No.02/2016. 7.1. In the said proceeding, petitioner was imposed with punishment of Stoppage of One Increment Without Cumulative Effect. However, since the Vigilance Proceeding is pending and the trial is going on, unless and until the Vigilance Proceeding is disposed of by holding the petitioner not guilty of the charges, petitioner is not entitled to get the benefit of promotion, which he was wrongly extended with, basing on the DPC recommendation dated 31.07.2023. It is also fairly contended that factum of pendency of the vigilance proceeding since was not within the knowledge of the DPC, which is apparent on the face of the proceeding of the DPC dtd.31.07.2023, such illegal p. 8 p. 8 benefit extended in favour of the petitioner was rightly cancelled by reverting the petitioner to his original post. 7.2. It is also contended that when it came to the knowledge of the Opp. Party No.2 that petitioner on the face of the pendency of the Vigilance Proceeding has got the benefit of promotion vide order dtd.31.07.2023, basing on the recommendation of the DPC dtd.31.07.2023, petitioner was issued with a show- cause on 29.11.2025 under Annexure-7. Petitioner also submitted his reply to the same on 10.12.2025 under Annexure-8. After due consideration of the reply and the admitted fact that a vigilance proceeding is pending against the petitioner, where the trial is continuing, in the Review DPC held on 16.01.2026, it was recommended to revert the petitioner to his original post. Basing on such recommendation of the Review DPC held on 16.01.2026, petitioner was reverted to the post of Senior Revenue Assistant and posted to the office of Sub-Collector, Pallahara against the existing p. 9 p. 9 vacancy vide office order dated 21.01.2026 under Annexure-6, so impugned in the present Writ Petition. 7.3. It is contended that since it is not disputed by the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner that on the face of the pendency of the Vigilance Proceeding, petitioner has got the benefit of promotion, no illegality or irregularity can be found with the impugned order dated 21.01.2026 under Annexure-6. It is also contended that no such order has been provided to this Court showing extension of the benefit of regular promotion on the face of the pendency of a proceeding against any Govt. Officer. 8. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and considering the submission made, this Court finds that petitioner while continuing as a Senior Revenue Assistant, in the Proceeding of the DPC dtd.31.07.2023, he was recommended for his promotion to the rank of Section Officer. In the said proceeding of the DPC dated 31.07.2023 so enclosed to the instruction vide Annexure-B, it was found that in p. 10 p. 10 the relevant column, nothing was indicated about the pendency of the Vigilance Proceeding against the petitioner. 8.1. However, basing on such recommendation of the DPC dated 31.07.2023, petitioner was extended with the benefit of promotion vide order dated 31.07.2023 under Annexure-5 series. In terms of the said order, petitioner also joined in the promotional post on 02.08.2023. 8.2. However, it is found that subsequently when it came to the knowledge of the authority that on the face of the pendency of the Vigilance Proceeding in Cuttack Vigilance P.S. Case No.63 of 2012, petitioner has got the benefit of promotion, he was issued with the show- cause on 29.11.2025 under Annexure-7, as to why he will not be reverted to his parent post by Opp. Party No.2. Petitioner submitted his reply to the show-cause vide letter dated 10.12.2025 under Annexure-8. 8.3. As found, Opp. Party No.2 taking into account the reply submitted by the petitioner and recommendation p. 11 p. 11 of the Review DPC so held on 16.01.2026, reverted the petitioner to the rank of Senior Revenue Assistant vide the impugned order dtd.21.01.2026 under Annexure-6. 8.4. Since it is not disputed that a Vigilance Proceeding was pending against the petitioner by the time he was extended with the benefit of promotion to the rank of Section Officer vide order dated 31.07.2023, it is the view of this Court that petitioner was not eligible to get the benefit of regular promotion at the relevant point of time. 8.5. Such a recommendation was made by the DPC dated 31.07.2023, on a wrong assumption that no proceeding is pending against the petitioner. It is also the view of this Court that the impugned order has been passed by Opp. Party No.2 vide order under Annexure-6, with issuance of a show-cause on 29.11.2025 under Annexure-7. Not only that on the face of time being allowed to the learned Sr. Counsel appearing for the petitioner to produce any order showing extension of the benefit of regular promotion, p. 12 p. 12 on the face of the pendency of a proceeding by this Court on 07.04.2026, 09.04.2026 and 16.04.2026, no such order could be produced before this Court. 8.6. In any view of the matter, this Court finds no illegality or irregularity with the impugned order dtd.21.01.2026, so issued by Opp. Party No.2 under Annexure-6 and accordingly is not inclined to interfere with the same. While not inclined to interfere with the impugned order and dismissing the Writ Petition, this Court only observe that petitioner can reiterate his claim to get the benefit of promotion, if he is ultimately acquitted in the Vigilance Proceeding. It is also open for the petitioner to take appropriate step for early disposal of the vigilance proceeding. 9. The Writ Petition accordingly stands dismissed with the aforesaid observation. (Biraja Prasanna Satapathy) Judge Orissa High Court, Cuttack Dated the 19th June, 2026/Basudev