BharatTaxGST

Union Of INDIA vs. Ashiquzzaman

Original PDF →
WP(C)/28732/2025HC OrissaGSTCNR ODHC01070567202512 November 2025Bench: MR. JUSTICE S.K.SAHOO,MR. JUSTICE SIBO SANKAR MISHRA15 pages

No AI summary yet for this judgment.

Cause title — parties, addresses and appearances
Page 1 of 15 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA, CUTTACK W.P.(C) No.28732 of 2025 An application under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India ------------------------- Union of India & another ....... Petitioners -Versus- Ashiquzzaman ....... Opp. Party For Petitioners: - Mr. Alok Kumar Mohanty, S.P.C For Opp. Party: - Mr. Jagamohan Pattanaik, Advocate being assisted by Mr. J.R. Behera, Advocate ------------------------- P R E S E N T: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.K. SAHOO AND THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SIBO SANKAR MISHRA ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Date of Hearing: 31.10.2025 Date of Order: 12.11.2025 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- S. S. Mishra, J: This writ petition has been filed by the petitioners assailing the order dated 07.04.2025 passed by the learned Central Administrative Tribunal, Cuttack Bench, Cuttack, in O.A. No. 260/00077 of Page 2 of 15 2020, whereby the Tribunal allowed the Original Application filed by the opposite party, Ashiquzzaman, an officer of the Indian Revenue Service (Customs & Central Excise, 2009 Batch), and directed the petitioners to act upon the recommendations of the Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC) held on 31.12.2018 and to promote the opposite party to the post of Joint Commissioner with effect from 23.01.2019, the date on which the suspension order of the opposite party was revoked pursuant to the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court although all the juniors were promoted to the said post with effect from 01.01.2019 and also directed to give all the consequential benefits arising therefrom. 2. Mr. Alok Kumar Mohanty, learned Special Panel Counsel appearing for the petitioners and Mr. Jagamohan Pattanaik, learned counsel appearing for the opposite party, have been heard in extenso. 3. The facts giving rise to the present writ petition are that the opposite party, Ashiquzzaman, Page 3 of 15 aged 39 years, an officer of the Indian Revenue Service, was serving as Deputy Commissioner, CGST and Central Excise, Rourkela Commissionerate. He was placed under suspension vide order dated 25.10.2018 issued by the competent authority, in contemplation of disciplinary proceedings. The said suspension was periodically reviewed and allowed to continue. 4. While the opposite party was under suspension, the Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC) convened on 31.12.2018 to consider the cases of eligible officers of the 2009 Batch for promotion to the post of Joint Commissioner. However, in terms of the DoP&T Office Memorandum dated 14.09.1992, since the applicant was under suspension at that time, the DPC decided to keep his case in sealed cover, while the names of his batchmates and juniors were recommended and they were promoted vide order dated 01.01.2019. 5. Subsequently, pursuant to an order of the Tribunal (as upheld by the Hon’ble Supreme Court), the Page 4 of 15 suspension of the opposite party was revoked with effect from 22.07.2019 vide order dated 08.03.2021. Meanwhile, the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) registered an FIR against him on 08.01.2020, and sanction for prosecution under Section 19(1)(a) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 was granted on 10.11.2023. Thereafter, a charge-sheet under Rule 14 of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965, was issued on 05.11.2024 to the opposite party. 6. The opposite party contended before the Tribunal that as on 31.12.2018, the date on which the DPC was convened, there was neither any criminal case instituted nor any departmental proceedings pending against him, and the only ground for applying the sealed cover procedure was his suspension. Once the suspension stood revoked on 22.07.2019, the sealed cover procedure, according to him, stood nullified, and the respondents were obliged to act upon the DPC’s recommendation and grant him promotion with effect Page 5 of 15 from 01.01.2019, i.e., the date on which his batchmates were promoted. 7. The petitioners, on the other hand, opposed the claim contending that as the opposite party had been placed under suspension when the DPC was held, the sealed cover procedure was correctly applied in terms of DoP&T O.M. dated 14.09.1992. They further submitted that since criminal prosecution had been launched subsequently and departmental proceedings initiated with the issuance of charge-sheet dated 05.11.2024, the sealed cover could not be opened unless the opposite party was fully exonerated or the proceedings were dropped, as per the guidelines contained in DoP&T O.M. dated 02.11.2012. They also relied on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Union of India v. K.V. Jankiraman, reported in AIR 1991 SC 2010, to contend that an employee has no vested right to promotion when disciplinary or criminal proceedings are pending. Page 6 of 15 8. Upon consideration of the rival contentions and the materials on record, the Central Administrative Tribunal, Cuttack Bench, found merit in the claim of the opposite party. The Tribunal noted that as on the date of the DPC, 31.12.2018, the opposite party was indeed under suspension, but no charge-sheet in either disciplinary or criminal proceedings had been issued against him. The Tribunal relied upon the authoritative pronouncement of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Union of India v. K.V. Jankiraman (supra), which held that the sealed cover procedure can be resorted to only after the issue of a charge-memo in a disciplinary proceeding or a charge-sheet in a criminal case, and not merely on the basis of pendency of preliminary investigation or contemplated action. 9. The Tribunal further relied on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Union of India v. Shri Doly Loyi, reported in Civil Appeal No. 8387 of 2013, which reiterated that when the charge-sheet is issued long after the meeting of the DPC, the adoption Page 7 of 15 of the sealed cover procedure at the earlier stage is unjustified and unsustainable in law. It also referred to DoP&T O.M. dated 23.01.2014, which clarifies that for purposes of review DPCs, an officer who was clear from vigilance angle on the date of promotion of his junior cannot be denied promotion on account of subsequent initiation of proceedings. 10. Applying the above principles, the Tribunal observed that the revocation of suspension w.e.f. 22.07.2019 and the admitted absence of any disciplinary or criminal case as on 31.12.2018, rendered the continuation of the sealed cover untenable. It held that the respondents’ refusal to open the sealed cover and act upon the DPC recommendation was contrary to settled law. 11. Consequently, the Tribunal directed the respondents to act upon the recommendation of the DPC dated 31.12.2018 and to promote the applicant to the post of Joint Commissioner with effect from 23.01.2019, the date on which the suspension order of Page 8 of 15 the applicant was revoked pursuant to the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court although all the juniors were promoted to the said post with effect from 01.01.2019 and also directed to give all the consequential benefits arising therefrom. The Tribunal further directed that the consequential order be issued within sixty (60) days from receipt of the copy of the

order.

12.

Mr. Mohanty, learned Senior Panel Counsel appearing for the Union of India and others, assailed the impugned order dated 07.04.2025 passed by the learned Central Administrative Tribunal, Cuttack Bench in O.A. No. 260/00077 of 2020, primarily on the ground that the Tribunal exceeded its juri iction and mi irected itself in law in directing the Department to act upon the recommendation of the Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC) dated 31.12.2018 which had been kept in a sealed cover. It was submitted that the Opposite Party was under suspension as on the date of the said DPC and was also facing a criminal

investigation by the CBI, which squarely attracted the sealed cover procedure prescribed in the Office Memorandum dated 14.09.1992 of the Department of Personnel and Training (DoP&T). Therefore, the Tribunal’s direction to open and act upon the sealed cover recommendation was contrary to the settled law and established procedure.

13.

He further contended that mere revocation of suspension does not entitle an officer to promotion as of right, particularly when criminal and departmental proceedings are pending against him. Reliance was placed on paragraph 3 of the aforesaid Office Memorandum, which categorically provides that the sealed cover recommendations can be opened only upon exoneration of the concerned officer or upon dropping of the disciplinary or criminal proceedings. In the present case, far from being exonerated, the Opposite Party was under active investigation, and sanction for prosecution had already been accorded by the competent authority on 10.11.2023, followed by the issuance of a charge memorandum for major penalty on 05.11.2024. Hence, the Tribunal’s finding that the case of Doly Loyi v. Union of India, reported in Civil Appeal No.8387/2013, and the DoP&T Office Memorandum dated 23.01.2014 would apply to the present facts was misplaced and legally unsustainable.

14.

Mr. Mohanty, further urged that the Hon’ble Tribunal erred in overlooking the settled principle laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Union of India v. K.V. Jankiraman [(1991) 4 SCC 109], wherein it has been held that an employee has no vested right to promotion and that the least that is expected of an officer being considered for promotion is an unblemished record of service. It was argued that the Opposite Party, being under a cloud of serious vigilance and criminal investigation, could not claim parity with officers of clean service records, and any direction to grant him promotion retrospectively would not only violate administrative discipline but also undermine the principle of merit and integrity in public service.

15.

It was lastly contended that the Tribunal’s direction to open the sealed cover and act upon the DPC recommendation amounted to pre-judging the outcome of ongoing disciplinary and criminal proceedings. The said order, according to the Petitioners, is contrary to the ratio laid down by the Apex Court and to the very spirit of the sealed cover procedure, which aims to maintain administrative purity pending conclusion of such proceedings. Hence, the impugned order dated 07.04.2025, being arbitrary, perverse, and passed in excess of juri iction, deserves to be set aside and the writ petition be allowed.

16.

We have carefully examined the rival submissions and perused the materials on record. The admitted position is that the DPC convened on 31.12.2018, while the suspension order was in operation. However, the charge memo in departmental proceedings and the criminal prosecution came much later, in 2023 and 2024, respectively.

17.

In Union of India v. K.V. Janakiraman (supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court authoritatively laid down that if DPC is held after the issuance of a charge memo in departmental proceeding or a charge- sheet in criminal case, sealed cover procedure could be employed. Mere pendency of preliminary investigation or contemplation of proceedings does not give authority to the department to adapt sealed cover procedure.

18.

This view was reiterated in Union of India v. Doly Loyi (supra), where the Apex Court held that even where sanction for prosecution existed, unless a charge-sheet had been filed prior to the DPC, sealed cover procedure was impermissible.

19.

Division Bench of this Court, in a recent judgment Union of India & Others v. Dr. Ashok Kumar Panda, reported in W.P.(C) No. 30483 of 2025, while dealing with similar issue in lis akin to almost identical factual matrix, held that subsequent initiation of disciplinary or criminal proceedings cannot retrospectively validate sealed cover adoption, and the recommendation made by the DPC must be acted upon if the officer was clear from the vigilance angle on the date of DPC. The relevant portion of the aforesaid judgment is extracted herein below for ready reference: “Learned counsel for the opp. party further submits that the process of in situ promotion of the eligible candidates was indeed initiated on 20.05.2022. On that date, a letter was issued to all in charges of Institutes/Centres functioning under the Council requiring the eligible Doctors to submit their work performance report with supporting documents regarding the completion of their five years services as on 31.03.2021. On the same date, the Headquarters forwarded the names of the candidates/employees, who were eligible for such in situ promotion for further verification of their candidature, wherein the opp. party name appeared at Sl. No.

6.

After verification, the revised eligibility list was circulated on 25.05.2022, wherein the opp. party name had appeared at Sl. No.

4.

On 30.05.2022, the opp. party and other candidates appeared at the interview as per the CCRAS order dated 20.05.2022. The process initiated for in situ promotion completed on that date. Subsequent thereto on 27.06.2022, the charge sheet was issued to the opp. party under Rule- 14 of CCS (CC&A) Rules, 1965. In these factual backgrounds, learned counsel for the opp. party has relied upon the judgment of K.V. Janakiraman (supra) quoted above and submits that the procedure adopted by the petitioners was directly against the settled principle of law because by the time the charge sheet was issued to the opp. party, the process promotion was already completed, therefore, the seal cover procedure ought not to have been opted for. In that view of the matter, the learned Tribunal has rightly passed the impugned order thereby directing the petitioner to open the seal

cover and to act upon the recommendation of the DAB. Since, the judgment of the learned Tribunal is purely based on the ratio laid by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of K.V. Janakiraman (supra) and the learned Tribunal has rightly treated the sequence of the event that had taken place in the present case, we are not inclined to interfere with the impugned order of the learned Tribunal.”

20.

Similarly, the single Bench of this Court in Nihar Ranjan Choudhury v. State of Odisha & Another, reported in W.P.(C) No. 21793 of 2021, observed that the pendency of a contemplated proceeding cannot be a ground to deny promotion, and once the employee is exonerated or the suspension revoked, he is entitled to the benefit of the DPC recommendation.

21.

Applying the aforesaid settled legal principles to the present case, it is evident that on the date of the DPC (31.12.2018), the opposite party was not facing any charge memo or criminal charge-sheet. His subsequent prosecution sanction and disciplinary charge memo in 2023 and 2024 cannot operate retrospectively to deny him his due promotion. The Tribunal rightly noted that the revocation of suspension in 2019 obliterated the basis for the sealed cover, and the respondents were duty-bound to open and act upon the DPC recommendation.

22.

We, therefore, find no illegality or infirmity in the reasoning or conclusion reached by the learned Tribunal. The impugned order is in consonance with the law declared by the Supreme Court and this Court. The order of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Cuttack Bench, Cuttack, dated 07.04.2025 in O.A. No. 260/00077 of 2020 is hereby affirmed.

23.

For the reasons aforesaid, the writ petition stands dismissed.

..........................

S.S. Mishra, J.

S.K. Sahoo, J. I agree.

................................ S. K. Sahoo, J.

Orissa High Court, Cuttack

Dated The 12th November, 2025/ Subhasis Mohanty

Reproduced from the public record of the Orissa High Court. Verify against the court's own copy before relying on it. Income tax judgments are on bharattax.net.