Government Employee Not Eligible For Regular Promotion During Pendency Of Vigilance Proceeding: Orissa High Court

"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... 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," High Court of Orissa, in a significant ruling, has held that a government employee is not eligible for regular promotion while a Vigilance Proceeding is pending against them.

A single-judge bench of Justice Biraja Prasanna Satapathy observed that if a Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC) recommends an employee's name based on the wrong assumption that no proceedings are pending, the subsequent order of reversion does not suffer from any illegality.

The case involved a petitioner, Sangram Keshari Nayak, who was serving as a Senior Revenue Assistant. He was promoted to the rank of Section Officer in July 2023 based on a DPC recommendation. However, the authorities later discovered that a vigilance case from 2012 was still pending against him, leading to the cancellation of his promotion and his reversion to his original post on January 21, 2026.

The petitioner was promoted following a DPC meeting held on July 31, 2023, where his name was recommended because the relevant service records failed to indicate any pending disciplinary or criminal proceedings. In November 2025, the authorities issued a show-cause notice to the petitioner for allegedly violating Rule 3 of the Odisha Government Servants’ Conduct Rules, 1959, by failing to disclose the pendency of Cuttack Vigilance P.S. Case No. 63 of 2012. Following a Review DPC in January 2026, the promotion was cancelled, and he was reverted to the post of Senior Revenue Assistant.

The primary question before the court was whether a promotion granted on the basis of incomplete records could be legally withdrawn through a reversion order. The court was also called upon to determine if the pendency of a long-standing Vigilance Proceeding acts as an absolute bar to regular promotion under service law.

Promotion Granted On Wrong Assumption Of Clean Record Is Voidable

The Court observed that the initial recommendation for promotion by the DPC on July 31, 2023, was made because "nothing was indicated with regard to pendency of any Disciplinary/Criminal proceeding against the petitioner." The bench noted that this recommendation was founded on a factual error regarding the petitioner's eligibility status.

The Court emphasized that the benefit of promotion was extended to the petitioner under Annexure-5 series solely because the authorities were unaware of the active criminal trial. Once the pendency of the Cuttack Vigilance P.S. Case No. 63 of 2012 came to the knowledge of the Opposite Parties, they were within their rights to review the decision.

"Such a recommendation was made by the DPC dated 31.07.2023, on a wrong assumption that no proceeding is pending against the petitioner."

No Right To Promotion During Pendency Of Criminal Proceedings

Justice Satapathy clarified that as long as a criminal or vigilance trial is ongoing, an employee cannot claim a right to regular promotion. The Court held that the petitioner’s eligibility was compromised at the "relevant point of time" due to the undisputed pendency of the 2012 vigilance case.

The bench further noted that the petitioner failed to produce any order or rule that allows for the extension of regular promotion benefits to government officers while they are facing criminal proceedings. The Court found that the petitioner's argument regarding parity—where others similarly situated allegedly received promotions—was not supported by documentary evidence.

"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."

Compliance With Principles Of Natural Justice

The Court highlighted that the authorities did not act arbitrarily in reverting the petitioner. It was noted that a show-cause notice was issued to the petitioner on November 29, 2025, and his reply was duly considered before the Review DPC made its final recommendation for reversion on January 16, 2026.

The bench found that the procedural requirements for reverting an employee were satisfied, as the petitioner was given an opportunity to explain his position. The Court concluded that the impugned order dated January 21, 2026, did not suffer from any "illegality or irregularity" that warranted interference under the writ jurisdiction.

"This Court finds no illegality or irregularity with the impugned order dtd.21.01.2026, so issued by Opp. Party No.2... and accordingly is not inclined to interfere with the same."

The High Court dismissed the Writ Petition, upholding the petitioner’s reversion to the post of Senior Revenue Assistant. However, the Court provided a safeguard, observing that the petitioner can reiterate his claim for promotion if he is ultimately acquitted in the Vigilance Proceeding. The bench also encouraged the petitioner to take appropriate steps for the early disposal of the long-pending 2012 case.

Date of Decision: 19 June 2026