Cuttack: The Orissa High Court has ruled that an employee facing a pending vigilance case is not entitled to regular promotion until the proceedings reach their logical conclusion, while upholding the cancellation of a government employee’s promotion.
Dismissing on Friday a writ petition filed by an employee under the Angul district administration, Justice Biraja Prasanna Satapathy held that the authorities acted lawfully in reverting the petitioner from the post of section officer to senior revenue assistant after it came to light that a vigilance case against him had remained pending since 2012.
The petitioner challenged a January 21, 2026 order of the Angul collector cancelling his promotion, arguing that he was promoted based on a departmental promotion committee (DPC) recommendation made on July 31, 2023, and had already joined the higher post. His counsel contended that the promotion could not subsequently be withdrawn merely because of the pendency of a vigilance proceeding, particularly when there was little progress in the case over the years. The state government, however, submitted that the employee was implicated in a corruption case registered at the Cuttack vigilance police station in 2012 and had also faced a departmental proceeding arising out of the same allegations. In that proceeding, he was punished with stoppage of one increment without cumulative effect.
Examining the records, the court noted that while recommending the petitioner’s promotion in 2023, the DPC had not recorded the pendency of the vigilance case. Based on that recommendation, the employee was promoted and joined as section officer on August 2, 2023.
“Since it is not disputed that a vigilance proceeding was pending against the petitioner at the time he was extended the benefit of promotion, the petitioner was not eligible to get the benefit of regular promotion,” Justice Satapathy ruled.
The judge observed that the promotion was granted on the erroneous assumption that no vigilance proceeding was pending against him. After the omission came to the notice of the authorities, a show-cause notice was issued in November 2025. Following consideration of the employee’s reply and the recommendation of a review DPC held in January 2026, the collector ordered his reversion.
Finding no illegality or procedural irregularity in the collector’s decision, the high court declined to interfere and dismissed the petition. It, however, observed that the employee would be free to seek promotional benefits if he is ultimately acquitted in the vigilance case and may also take steps for its early disposal.
