By Satya Prakash Nayak
Bhubaneswar,01/09/2026: In an exclusive investigative report highlighted by SATYAPATHA ( a leading digital news Platform), official documents have surfaced revealing a major controversy surrounding the appointment of Odisha’s top cop (DGP). The revelations point to significant procedural maneuvering by the Odisha government to promote and include a preferred IPS officer’s name in the panel sent to the Union Public Service Commission (UPSC), directly defying directives from the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA).
The Core Issue: Defying the Ministry of Home Affairs
MHA’s Direct Refusal: Official correspondence from the Ministry of Home Affairs (Letter No. I-11012/17/2025-IPS.I, dated February 9, 2026) addressed to the Chief Secretary of Odisha explicitly rejected the State Government’s proposal to create temporary ex-cadre posts at the DG level.
Cadre Strength Exceeded: According to MHA guidelines, the Odisha cadre is sanctioned for a total of 4 DG-level posts (2 State Deputation Reserve + 2 Direct Cadre). However, the state was already operating 5 posts at the DG level without valid vacancies.
Rejection of Promotion Proposal: Consequently, the Home Ministry stated that concurrence for creating 2 temporary ex-cadre posts to facilitate the promotion of 1994-batch IPS officers (including Sanjeev Panda and Yeshwant Jethwa) to the DG rank (Level 16) “cannot be acceded to” due to zero existing vacancies.
Favoritism and Temporary Promotion Out-of-Turn Elevation: Despite the MHA’s refusal in February 2026, the state government proceeded to grant temporary DG-level promotions to the 1994-batch ADG-rank officers in August 2026.
Bypassing the Rules for a Preferred Choice: As revealed in the Satyapatha report, the primary motivation behind forcing these temporary promotions was to ensure that a favored IPS officer—Sanjeev Panda—who did not initially meet the DG rank criteria, was elevated to temporary DG rank so his name could be included in the empaneled list submitted to the UPSC for the permanent DGP post.
Submission to UPSC and Legal Fallout
Sending Names to UPSC: Despite the clear absence of approved DG vacancies and explicit warnings from the MHA, the state government pushed through the names of the promoted officers to the UPSC for final selection ahead of key meetings.
Administrative & Legal Backlash: The move has drawn intense scrutiny regarding administrative propriety. By bending cadre rules to accommodate specific candidates, the state administration’s actions have faced challenges in the Supreme Court, exposing how cadre rules and central directives were sidestepped to secure a preferred appointment.
