Sanchayita Lahkar

The High Court of Orissa Division Bench of Chief Justice Harish Tandon and Justice Murahari Sri Raman has allowed a writ appeal challenging the denial of promotion to the Indian Administrative Service (IAS) Cadre based on delayed implementation of a minor penalty imposed in 2011. The court held that once a minor punishment under Rule 13 of the Odisha Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1962 is imposed, it must be recorded in the service record of the year it pertains to, and any delay in implementation by the authorities cannot be used to deny promotional consideration.

The Division Bench concluded that the delay in reflecting the penalty in the appellant's service book until 2020 was attributable entirely to the administrative authorities and not to the appellant. As such, the subsequent denial of consideration for promotion in 2020 for IAS Cadre vacancies arising up to 2019 could not be legally sustained. The court accordingly allowed the writ appeal, set aside the single judge’s order, and directed authorities to reconsider the appellant's case for promotion without regard to the delayed entry of the punishment in 2020.

Also Read: Right To Do Business Includes Right To Shut Down | Supreme Court Upholds Article 19(1)(g) Protection

The case concerned a senior officer from the Odisha Administrative Service, appointed in 1987, who was working as the Administrative Officer of the Srirama Chandra Bhanja Medical College and Hospital (SCBMCH), Cuttack, at the time of the events in question. During her prior posting as Additional Executive Officer under the Cuttack Municipal Corporation from 09.08.1995 to 31.01.2000, a departmental proceeding had been initiated against her on 16.04.2002. The proceeding stemmed from allegations of illegal engagement of persons under the Daily Labour Roster (DLR).

Upon conclusion of the disciplinary process, two out of fourteen charges were established. Based on the enquiry report, and after consultation with the Odisha Public Service Commission, a minor punishment was imposed via Government Order dated 29.07.2011. The order specified that “one annual increment without cumulative effect” was to be withheld. The disciplinary authority’s order was never challenged and was thus treated as final.

The officer was subsequently transferred and posted as the Administrative Officer at SCBMCH, Cuttack, via Order dated 04.11.2011. Noting that the punishment order had not been implemented by the District Administration, the officer addressed a formal letter dated 27.12.2011 to the Superintendent, SCBMCH, with a request to implement the order. The communication also enclosed the original punishment order and was marked to the Additional Secretary of the Revenue & Disaster Management Department for information.

The Superintendent annotated the letter, directing the Drawing and Disbursing Officer (DDO) to take the necessary action. Despite this, no further steps were taken by the responsible authorities to implement the punishment or to reflect it in the officer’s service record. Over the following years, the officer continued to receive promotions up to the year 2020, with no objection from the authorities.

On 12.06.2020, while her case was under consideration for promotion to the Indian Administrative Service (IAS) under the Odisha Cadre for vacancies up to 2019, the Administrative Officer of SCBMCH issued a letter to the Additional Secretary of the General Administration Department. This letter indicated that the 2011 punishment order had not been recorded in the officer’s original service book.

Following this, the General Administration Department requested the Board of Revenue (the controlling authority) to take necessary steps. The punishment was formally implemented via Office Order dated 05.11.2020, by withholding one increment effective from 01.11.2020.

The officer challenged the delayed implementation and the resultant adverse impact on her IAS promotion prospects by filing a writ petition before the learned Single Judge. She argued that she had fulfilled her duty by notifying the relevant authorities in 2011 and could not be blamed for the delay in execution. She further stated that the punishment being minor and relating to an event in 2011, should not have been used to deny her consideration for promotion in 2020.

The learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition on 25.06.2024, holding that the officer, being the Administrative Officer at SCBMCH in 2011, had the primary responsibility to ensure the punishment order was enforced. A subsequent review petition filed by the officer was also dismissed on 08.01.2025.

Aggrieved, she filed the present intra-court appeal before the Division Bench, contending that the judgment of the Single Judge failed to consider the relevant documents, particularly her 2011 letter and the Superintendent’s endorsement directing the DDO to act on it.

The appellant relied on documentary evidence submitted as Annexures to the writ petition, which included the punishment order dated 29.07.2011, her communication dated 27.12.2011, and internal notations by the Superintendent. These demonstrated that she had taken necessary action and the fault lay with the authorities for failing to implement the order at the appropriate time.

The respondents contended that the officer had not done enough to ensure the punishment was carried out. They maintained that the responsibility to enforce the order and update the service record rested with her as she held an administrative position at SCBMCH. They further argued that the delayed enforcement was justified and that the appellant had failed to highlight the lapse during successive salary disbursals.

The respondents invoked the service regulations, particularly Rule 13 of the Odisha Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1962, which govern the imposition and recording of minor punishments. They also referenced Clause 10 of the Letters Patent of the High Court of Judicature at Patna and Rule 6 of Chapter-III and Rule 2 of Chapter-VIII of the Orissa High Court Rules, 1948, to establish the limited scope of intra-court appellate review.

The appellant countered these arguments by highlighting that the Government’s own Circular dated 03.03.2008 directed that such punishments must be recorded in the Confidential Character Rolls (CCR)/Performance Appraisal Report (PAR) ledger for the year in which the punishment was awarded—not the year of its implementation. She contended that applying the punishment in 2020 to deny promotion for vacancies of 2019 violated this directive.

The case thus centered on the factual question of whether the officer had taken adequate steps to secure enforcement of the punishment in 2011, and the legal question of whether the delayed implementation could be used as a valid ground to deny her promotion.

The Division Bench reviewed the findings of the Single Judge and closely examined the evidentiary documents placed on record, particularly the punishment order dated 29.07.2011 and the officer’s communication dated 27.12.2011 to the Superintendent, SCBMCH. The Court noted that “the copy of order of punishment was directed to be served on the appellant, but no indication therein is available to show that the appellant was to implement the terms of order of punishment; rather it was addressed to competent authorities to take steps.”

The Bench further scrutinized the communication made by the appellant and recorded that “while the appellant was working in the capacity of Additional Executive Officer in the Cuttack Municipal Corporation, the Order of punishment dated 29.07.2011 was served. On her transfer to the SCBMCH, Cuttack as Administrative Officer, she requested the Superintendent… for withholding of annual increment without cumulative effect on 27.12.2011 by enclosing copy of Order dated 29.07.2011.”

The Court noted that the document bore an endorsement from the Superintendent instructing the DDO to carry out the necessary action and that there was “no dispute by them with respect to marking of the document to the DDO with the instructions by the Superintendent.”

The Bench found that despite the documentary evidence showing the appellant had requested implementation of the punishment, “nothing is placed by the opposite parties on record to suggest that the DDO was taken to task for such lapses in conduct of his duty.” The Court recorded that “it is incumbent upon the duty of the DDO to have taken necessary steps in this regard to comply with the order of punishment.”

In view of the above, the Court stated that “the appellant at the relevant point of time in the year 2011 has intimated proper quarters requesting for withholding increment without cumulative effect.” It also observed that “the Superintendent of SCBMCH has never denied the fact contained in the Letter dated 27.12.2011 and there was no dispute by them with respect to marking of the document to the DDO with the instructions by the Superintendent.”

The Court further stated that “such factual scenario clinches that the appellant had discharged her onus. It was the burden on the opposite parties which they failed to discharge till 2020.”

Commenting on the judgment of the learned Single Judge, the Division Bench stated that “the facts which led to dismissal of the writ petition by the learned Single Judge appear to be perverse when tested with the aforesaid facts as established from the documents placed at Annexures-1 and 2 of the writ petition.”

Regarding the application of the punishment to the consideration for promotion in 2020, the Court relied on the Government Circular dated 03.03.2008, which clarified that “the copy of the order awarding the penalty to a delinquent officer should be placed in the CCR/PAR of the year in which it is awarded.” The Court stated that “had the Selection Committee kept in view the Circulars… the same would have to be construed to have effect for the year 2011.”

The Bench also referred to the minutes of the IAS Selection Committee meeting dated 17.12.2020 and noted that “the Selection Committee was required to consider performance of the officer since 2015 as the vacancy year under consideration was 2019.” In that light, the Court held that the punishment relating to 2011 “can be said to have no effect or impact for consideration of service records for the years 2015, 2016, 2017, 2018 and 2019.”

The Division Bench rejected the argument that the appellant was responsible for the delay. It recorded that “the respondents appear to be in a mood to shirk responsibility and vest the same on the appellant, as if it is the delinquent-employee who is required to carry out the terms of order of punishment including reflecting such fact in her service book.”

The Court also examined the Review Petition judgment dated 08.01.2025 and stated that the Single Judge therein had ignored the implications of the Circular dated 03.03.2008. The Bench observed that “had the learned Single Judge taken into consideration effect and impact of such Circular… the resultant of the writ petition warranted to be reviewed.”

Finally, the Court addressed the broader issue of administrative delay and its implications. It observed that “the entry in the service book regarding a disciplinary action relates back to the date of the order passed by the disciplinary authority, even if the punishment or penalty was carried out or complied with at a later date or belated stage.”

It held that “the rationale behind this approach is to ensure that the service record accurately reflects the date when the disciplinary action was initiated and decided upon.” The Bench reiterated that “an employee should not suffer a compounded disadvantage simply because there was a delay in the administrative process.”

Here is the Directives section (approx. 400 words), presenting the Court’s final directions based on exact wording and clear instructions from the judgment:

Directives

The Division Bench allowed the writ appeal filed by the appellant and set aside the judgment dated 25.06.2024 passed by the learned Single Judge in the writ petition, as well as the order dated 08.01.2025 passed in the review petition.

The Court held that the financial recoveries and deposits made in execution of the punishment imposed by the disciplinary authority through the order dated 29 July 2011 shall be deemed to have been completed in that same year. It clarified that the implementation date of the punishment in the service record must correspond to the date of the disciplinary order, and not the year in which the enforcement eventually took place.

It further directed that the failure to reflect the punishment in the appellant’s service book was not attributable to her. Accordingly, the Court accepted the relief sought by the appellant, having found that she had taken timely steps in good faith to initiate the enforcement process back in 2011. Responsibility for the delay, the Court concluded, lay with the administrative authorities.

Also Read: Mob Pressure Cannot Override Judicial Duty | Calcutta High Court Finds Advocates Guilty of Contempt for Courtroom Disruption but Grants Opportunity for Reform

As part of the operative relief, the Court instructed the State authorities to formally reckon the effective date of the punishment as 29 July 2011. All consequential recoveries or service entries flowing from that punishment must likewise be treated as originating in the year 2011. The Court made it clear that the appellant was entitled to receive all resulting service-related benefits that would have accrued had the punishment been properly recorded in that year.

The Court also issued a firm directive to the concerned authorities to undertake a fresh consideration of the appellant’s promotion case. This reconsideration must account for the findings recorded in the present judgment and shall exclude any reference to the belated implementation of the 2011 punishment in 2020. The entire process must be completed preferably within a period of three months from the date of the judgment.

Finally, the Court concluded the appeal with a direction that all pending interlocutory applications, if any, stood disposed of. No order was made as to costs.

Advocates Representing the Parties:

For the Petitioner: Durga Prasad Nanda, Senior Advocate; Rupesh Kumar Kanungo, A. Acharya, P. Roy, D. Nayak, D. Nanda, A. Aslesh, Advocates

For the Respondents: Saswat Das, Additional Government Advocate

Case Title: Sanjita Das v. State of Odisha & Others

Case Number: WA No. 432 of 2025

Bench: Chief Justice Harish Tandon and Justice Murahari Sri Raman

[Read/Download order]