Cuttack: The Orissa high court has quashed two orders of a judge that had allowed 50 sub-inspectors (SIs) of police to submit their annual property declarations beyond the govt-extended deadline, holding that courts cannot step into the executive’s domain to grant further relaxation.A division bench of Justices Krishna Shripad Dixit and Chittaranjan Dash, in a Feb 19 judgment, allowed 50 intra-court appeals filed by the state and its functionaries. The bench set aside orders, dated Sept 20 and 26, 2025, which had permitted the respondent-police officials to file declarations after missing the deadline.
The state had twice extended the deadline for the 2024 declaration cycle — first till Feb 28, 2025, with the chief minister’s approval dated Feb 7, 2025, and then till May 31, 2025, with approval dated April 17, 2025. The bench noted it was undisputed that the respondent-employees did not file their declarations during either extension. Their plea that fieldwork prevented timely filing was described as “nothing but a ruse.“The court underscored that Rule 21(4) of the Orissa Government Servants’ Conduct Rules, 1959, requires every civil servant to declare assets and liabilities by Jan 31 each year, or within such period as extended under Rule 31. The provision, the bench said, is couched in mandatory terms and repeatedly uses the word “shall”. It also carries serious consequences — denial of promotion and initiation of disciplinary action — in the event of non-compliance.Referring to the 2021 amendment that made filing of asset declarations a precondition for promotion, the court held that mere deferment of departmental promotion committee meetings cannot “elongate the period prescribed” under the rules. It further observed that “there is absolutely no justification whatsoever for the writ court to assume the powers of executive and thereby grant further extension.”Rejecting the employees’ argument of legitimate expectation based on earlier extensions, the bench termed it “ridiculous, to say the least,” clarifying that sporadic relaxations do not create enforceable rights.Emphasising the larger goal of probity and transparency in public service, the court warned that repeated exceptions would defeat the rule itself. Concluding that “the cause of public administration will be more served by sustaining the stand of government,” the bench allowed the appeals and set aside the orders of the judge.
