By Our Correspondent
BHUBANESWAR: Odisha Government under scanner for allegedly misleading Centre on DG-rank vacancies to facilitate Sanjeeb Panda’s elevation. State seeks 2 Temporary DG Posts citing Impending Vacancies; Questions Arise over Existing Cadre, Ex-cadre Structure and timing of Proposal.
The Odisha Government’s reported attempt to facilitate the elevation of 1994-batch IPS officer Sanjeeb Panda to the Director General of Police (DGP) rank has come under a fresh cloud of controversy, with serious questions being raised over whether the State Government has presented the complete and correct position regarding the availability of DG-rank posts to the Union Government.
The issue assumes significance because the State Government has now formally approached the Ministry of Home Affairs seeking approval for creation of two temporary ex-cadre posts in the DG grade (Level-16) to accommodate 1994-batch IPS officers Sanjeeb Panda and Yeshwant Kumar Jethwa.
A letter dated 8 August 2026, issued by the General Administration & Public Grievance Department of the Government of Odisha, specifically requests Central Government concurrence for creation of the two temporary posts. The letter states that the posts would automatically cease to exist on 17 August 2026 and 1 December 2026, respectively, when the officers would supposedly be absorbed against regular vacancies.
Is the Centre being given the complete vacancy picture?
The central question is: Was the Union Government given the complete picture of the existing DG-rank posts and their present occupants before the proposal for two additional temporary posts was made?
The State Government’s letter proceeds on the basis that two DG-grade vacancies would arise following the superannuation of Y.B. Khurania on 16 August 2026 and Vinaytosh Mishra on 30 November 2026.
But this formulation raises questions about the present cadre position, the distinction between cadre and ex-cadre DG posts, and the effect of proforma promotion granted to officers on Central deputation.
According to records and information available in official circles, Odisha has two cadre posts in the DG rank and two ex-cadre posts in the DG rank. The two cadre positions have been occupied by Y.B. Khurania and Sudhanshu Sarangi, while Vinaytosh Mishra and R.P. Koche have occupied DG-rank ex-cadre positions. Susanta Kumar Nath, who was on Central deputation when his batchmates were promoted, was granted proforma promotion.
The crucial issue is what happens when Nath returns to the Odisha cadre.If his return results in the existing DG-grade strength being fully occupied, the question arises as to whether there is actually a regular DG-grade vacancy available immediately for accommodating another officer—or whether the State is seeking to manufacture an additional temporary post specifically to enable the promotion of Panda and Jethwa.
The timing of the proposal is particularly significant The State’s own communication makes clear that the proposed temporary posts are intended specifically for Sanjeeb Panda and Yeshwant Kumar Jethwa, both 1994-batch officers.
The timing is therefore difficult to overlook.If the State Government’s contention is that a regular DG vacancy will arise upon retirement of an incumbent, why was there a need to seek two temporary ex-cadre DG posts with immediate effect?
More importantly, if the relevant regular vacancy does not arise until the retirement of the incumbent concerned, why should an additional DG-grade post be created in advance?
These are questions that the Ministry of Home Affairs and the UPSC would necessarily have to examine before granting concurrence.
A proposal apparently designed to overcome the promotion bottleneckThe sequence of events gives rise to the apprehension that the temporary-post proposal is being used to overcome an otherwise existing promotion bottleneck at Level-16.
Shri Panda is presently an ADG in Level-15. The State Government’s proposal itself acknowledges that his elevation would be to DG grade, Level-16.
Once placed in DG grade, Panda would become eligible for consideration alongside other DG-level officers for the post of DGP (HoPF), which carries the highest responsibility in the State police hierarchy.
Thus, the creation of a temporary DG post is not a routine administrative adjustment. It potentially changes the competitive field for selection of the next DGP.
Questions over what was placed before the UPSC
The issue has acquired further significance following the UPSC meeting held on 7 August 2026. According to persons familiar with the proceedings, the State side reportedly sought withdrawal of the integrity certificate of senior 1993-batch IPS officer Susanta Kumar Nath. Questions were reportedly raised during the proceedings regarding the material forming the basis for such a step.
Equally significant is the reported question as to how an officer presently occupying Level-15 could be considered for a process ultimately leading to a Level-17 DGP appointment without first resolving his intervening DG-grade position.
The developments raise a larger question: was the State Government attempting to alter the field of eligible DG-rank officers immediately before the final selection process?
The contents of the UPSC deliberations are not publicly available and therefore these aspects require independent confirmation.
Does the State’s proposal accurately reflect the cadre position?
The controversy is not simply about whether Panda and Jethwa are eligible for promotion after completing 32 years of service. The State’s letter expressly makes that case.
The more fundamental issue is whether the creation of temporary ex-cadre posts is administratively necessary on the dates proposed, or whether it is being employed to circumvent the normal sequence of vacancies and promotions.
The Odisha Government’s own retirement notification records that DGP Y.B. Khurania is to retire with effect from 16 August 2026 (AN).
If, as the State says, his retirement creates a regular DG-grade vacancy, that vacancy can naturally be filled in accordance with the applicable cadre rules. The controversy arises over the additional temporary posts and the manner in which the existing DG-grade strength has been presented to the Centre.
This is why critics of the move are asking whether the Union Government has been given the entire factual picture—including cadre posts, ex-cadre posts, present occupants, proforma promotions and the precise dates on which actual vacancies arise—or merely a selective account designed to justify creation of two additional posts.
Judicial record also raises questions
The proposed elevation of Panda also brings renewed attention to the judgment of the Orissa High Court in W.P.(C) No.18470 of 2018.The case concerned disciplinary proceedings against another IPS officer, but Shri Sanjeeb Panda, then DIG, had conducted the preliminary inquiry. The High Court found serious jurisdictional and procedural defects in the inquiry and observed that the inquiry officer had effectively become “judge of his own cause” because of his involvement in the underlying matter.
The Court further held that the preliminary inquiry lacked jurisdiction and legal sanctity and ultimately quashed the proceedings. The State’s challenge subsequently reached the Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 6242 of 2021. The judicial record therefore warrants careful examination of Panda’s role in the matter, although it would be incorrect to state that the Court personally found Panda guilty of misconduct.
Is seniority-cum-merit being bypassed?
The ultimate concern is whether the administrative machinery is being rearranged first to make a particular officer eligible and then to facilitate his consideration for the post of DGP.
The Supreme Court’s police-reform jurisprudence requires the selection of the DGP through a process designed to ensure consideration of senior officers on objective parameters including service record, experience and suitability, rather than political preference.
Against this background, the sequence—
Level-15 ADG → creation of temporary Level-16 DG post → promotion to DG → inclusion in the field for DGP selection
—deserves close scrutiny.
The question confronting the Union Government is therefore not merely whether two 1994-batch officers have completed the requisite period of service.
The more important question is whether the State Government has accurately disclosed the existing cadre position and actual vacancy position to the Centre, and whether the proposed creation of temporary DG posts is genuinely required for administrative reasons or is being used as a device to facilitate the elevation of a particular officer.
If the latter is established, it would raise serious questions about the integrity of the DGP-selection process itself.
The Centre and the UPSC would do well to independently verify the sanctioned strength, cadre and ex-cadre DG posts, present incumbency, proforma promotions, deputation status and the exact dates of creation of regular vacancies before granting concurrence to the State’s proposal.
That, more than anything else, will determine whether the current exercise is a legitimate cadre-management measure—or an administrative route being created “by hook or by crook” to clear the way for a preferred candidate.
