Delay in Test Identification & Absence of Motive Fatal to Prosecution: Allahabad High Court Acquits Man for Murder Tokre Koli or Dhor Koli – Both Stand on Same Legal Footing: Bombay High Court Slams Scrutiny Committee for Disregarding Pre-Constitutional Records Consent Is No Defence When Victim Is Under 16: Delhi High Court Upholds Rape Conviction Granting Pre-Arrest Bail in Minor Rape Cases Would Send a Harmful Societal Signal: Delhi High Court Refuses Anticipatory Bail to Accused Citing POCSO’s Rigorous Standards Void Marriage No Shield Against Cruelty Charges: Karnataka High Court Affirms Section 498A Applies Even In Deceptive and Void Marital Relationships Consolidation Authorities Cannot Confer Ownership Or Alter Scheme Post Confirmation Without Due Process: Punjab & Haryana High Court Reaffirms Civil Court’s Jurisdiction Over Void Post-Scheme Orders Litigation Policy is Not Law, Can’t Enforce Guidelines Through Courts: Rajasthan High Court Refuses to Entertain Quo Warranto Against Additional Advocate General’s Appointment Police and Lawyers Are Two Limbs of Justice System: Rajasthan High Court Takes Suo Motu Cognizance in Police Misconduct Incident Sole Testimony, Forensic Gaps, and Withheld Witness: No Conviction Possible: Delhi High Court Affirms Acquittal in Murder Trial Remand Keeps the Dispute Alive – Not Arrears: Bombay High Court Holds SVLDRS Relief Must Be Computed Under Litigation Category Use of ‘Absconding’ in Employment Context Not Defamatory Per Se, But A Privileged Communication Under Exception 7 of Section 499 IPC: Allahabad High Court Daughter’s Right Extinguished When Partition Effected Prior to 2005 Amendment: Madras High Court Trial Courts Cannot Direct Filing of Challan After Conviction — Punjab & Haryana High Court Quashes Directions Against DSP Veer Singh Rule 4 Creates Parity, Not a Parallel Pension Pipeline: Rajasthan High Court Denies Dual Pension to Ex-Chief Justice Serving as SHRC Chairperson Right to Be Heard Must Be Preserved Where Claim Has a Legal Basis: Orissa High Court Upholds Impleadment of Will Beneficiary in Partition Suit Long-Term Ad Hocism Is Exploitation, Not Employment: Orissa High Court Orders Regularization Of Junior Typist After 25 Years Of Service PIL Cannot Be a Tool for Personal Grievances: Supreme Court Upholds Municipal Body’s Power to Revise Property Tax After 16 Years Omission of Accused’s Name by Eyewitness in FIR is a Fatal Lacuna: Supreme Court Acquits Man Convicted of Murder Correction In Revenue Map Under Section 30 Isn’t A Tool To Shift Plot Location After 17 Years: Supreme Court Quashes High Court’s Remand Casteist Abuses Must Be In Public View: Supreme Court Quashes SC/ST Act Proceedings Where Alleged Insults Occurred Inside Complainant’s House Resignation Bars Pension, But Not Gratuity: Supreme Court Draws Sharp Line Between Voluntary Retirement and Resignation in DTC Employee Case

High Court of Orissa Sets Aside Orders Granting Promotion During Pendency of Criminal Cases Against Government Servants

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


Cutack, May 11, 2023: The High Court of Orissa delivered a significant judgment today in a batch of writ appeals, wherein it addressed the issue of granting promotions to government servants during the pendency of criminal cases against them. The order, numbered 11 and dated May 11, 2023, sets aside the orders of the learned Single Judge that directed the State of Odisha to grant promotions subject to the outcome of the criminal proceedings.

The court considered a common question that arose in all the appeals, namely, whether government servants could be granted ad hoc or regular promotions while criminal cases against them were still pending. It noted that the criminal cases were at various stages in the Court of the Special Judge (Vigilance) and that departmental proceedings were also pending in some cases.

The court observed that except in one appeal, the impugned orders were passed by the learned Single Judge on the first date of hearing without allowing the State of Odisha to file its reply. After hearing the arguments of the parties, the court examined various Office Memoranda (OMs) and Notifications issued by the Government of Odisha, which did not permit or envisage promotions during the pendency of criminal cases involving government servants.

Referring to legal precedents, including judgments of the Supreme Court, the court held that government servants do not have a right to be considered for promotion during the pendency of departmental or criminal proceedings. The plea for granting ad hoc promotions to the respondents was also rejected by the court, as it found no legal basis for such a request.

The court clarified that if a government servant is acquitted in the criminal proceedings and exonerated in the departmental proceedings, the notional benefits of the promotion due to the employee will be calculated, and the pension will be fixed accordingly. It further noted that the respondents could request the criminal courts to expedite the proceedings and bring the trials to an early conclusion.

Consequently, the court set aside the impugned orders of the learned Single Judge, as they directed the State of Odisha to grant promotions to the respondents subject to the outcome of the criminal cases. The writ appeals were allowed, and no costs were imposed.

This judgment has significant implications for the promotion policies concerning government servants facing criminal charges in the state of Odisha. The court's ruling clarifies the legal position that promotions cannot be granted during the pendency of criminal cases, emphasizing the importance of completing the criminal proceedings and departmental proceedings before considering promotions.

May 11, 2023:

State of Odisha and Another   vs Joseph Barik

Latest Legal News