Not A Mere Breach Of Contract: Telangana High Court Refuses To Quash FIR In ₹73 Crore Garment Investment Fraud Accused Not Entitled To Copies Of 'Unrelied' Upon Documents At The Stage Of Framing Of Charges Under Section 91 CrPC: Supreme Court Elected Representatives Have No Privilege To Resort To Violence; Criminal Antecedents Are Material For Bail Adjudication: Supreme Court Mere Absence Of Transport Documents Does Not Create A Presumption Of Violation Of Chhattisgarh Agricultural Cattle Preservation Act, 2004: Supreme Court Section 396 IPC | Conviction For 'Dacoity With Murder' Requires Proof That Murder Was Committed In The Course Of Dacoity: Allahabad High Court 'Developers Cannot Delay Conveyance For Eternity And Milk Additional FSI Benefits': Bombay High Court Upholds Societies' Deemed Conveyance Pre-Approval Statutory Dues Stand Extinguished Upon Approval Of Resolution Plan; GST Authorities Cannot Initiate Fresh Proceedings: Calcutta High Court Unregistered Agreement To Sell With Delivery Of Possession Is Admissible In A Suit For Specific Performance: Delhi High Court Stigmatic Order Discharging Probationer Without Inquiry Is Void For Violation Of Natural Justice: Gujarat High Court Execution Proceedings | Court Cannot Impose Arbitrary Financial Conditions Without Reason In Stay Applications: Himachal Pradesh High Court Section 528 BNSS | High Court Cannot Exercise Inherent Powers To Circumvent Statutory Bar Against Second Revision: Delhi High Court Advocate Empanelment | Restriction On Multiple Applications Is A Procedural Choice Within Employer’s Domain: Delhi High Court Acquittal Appeal | Double Presumption Of Innocence In Favour Of Accused Cannot Be Disturbed Merely Because Another View Is Possible: Gujarat High Court SC/ST Act | Offence Under Section 3(1)(g) Not Attracted If Dispossession Or Interference Is Not Due To Victim's Caste: Himachal Pradesh High Court Judicial Officer Must Maintain Distance From Practicing Advocates To Avoid Impropriety: Gujarat High Court Upholds Dismissal Section 183 BNSS | Investigating Officer Cannot Independently Record Further Statement Of Victim After Recording Before Magistrate: Karnataka High Court Non-Production Of Case Property And Missing Link Evidence In Seizure Cases Vitiates Prosecution: Himachal Pradesh High Court Employees Compensation Act | Death Due To Cardiac Arrest During Employment Is An 'Accident' Arising Out Of Stress And Strain Of Duty: J&K High Court Transfer Of Proceedings | Courts Must Issue Fresh Notice To Parties Even If They Had Appeared Before The Transferor Court: Kerala High Court Sets Aside Ex-Parte Award Section 80P(4) IT Act Does Not Deny Deduction To Regional Rural Banks As They Retain The 'Deemed Co-operative Society' Status Under Section 22 RRB Act: Madras High Court Property Purchased In Name Of Child For Family Benefit Is Not A 'Benami Transaction' Under Section 2(9) Of The 1988 Act: Madhya Pradesh High Court Person Without Caveatable Interest Cannot Challenge Will Or Seek Revocation Of Probate: Madras High Court Divorce | Cruelty Must Be Assessed By Cumulative Effect Of Matrimonial Conduct Rather Than Isolated Incidents: Orissa High Court Merely Labeling Insurance Policy As Comprehensive Does Not Create Unlimited Liability: MP High Court Order VII Rule 11 CPC | Plaint Must Be Rejected If Limitation Bar Is Apparent From Face Of Pleadings: Patna High Court Limitation Act | 'Sufficient Cause' Cannot Be Used To Revive Stale Or Dead Claims By State: Orissa High Court Quashes Order Condoning 53-Year Delay Employee Cannot Remain Dormant Like Rip Van Winkle & Awaken At Convenience: Punjab & Haryana High Court Dismisses Stale Service Plea With ₹25K Cost Section 29 NDPS Act | Mere Allegation Of 'Cooperation' Without Specific Overt Acts Cannot Sustain Charge Of Conspiracy: Rajasthan High Court Forest Land Status Does Not Extinguish Private Civil Title: Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds Decree For Possession Once Admitted In Evidence, Document Cannot Be De-Marked On Grounds Of Insufficiency Of Stamp Duty: Telangana High Court Section 190 BNSS | Mere Presence In Unlawful Assembly With Active Intent Renders Member Vicariously Liable For Homicidal Act: Punjab & Haryana High Court Contributory Negligence Under Motor Vehicles Act Cannot Be Inferred Without Cogent Evidence: Telangana High Court Enhances Compensation Motor Vehicles Act | Section 164 Compensation Of Rs. 5 Lakhs Applicable Even To Pending Claims Arising Prior To 2019 Amendment: Punjab & Haryana High Court Consumer Protection Act | Builder Liable To Pay Interest For Delayed Possession Despite Force Majeure Plea If Agreement Executed Post-Outbreak: State Commission

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