Research › Search › Judgment

Delhi High Court · body

2004 DIGILAW 69 (DEL)

S. C. S. SAINI v. DDA

2004-02-04

PRADEEP NANDRAJOG

body2004
PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J. ( 1 ) RESULT: Writ dismissed. Petitioner joined service under DDA on 29. 11. 1968 as Section Officer. On 16. 8. 1976, he was promoted as Assistant Director (Horticulture ). Thereafter, on 20. 5. 1988, he was promoted as Deputy Director (Horticulture ). ( 2 ) BASED on the report of the Technical examiner CVC, DDA issued a charge-sheet to the petitioner on 21. 10. 1993 pertaining to events of the year 1983 i. e. after about 10 years. Alleging that delay in enquiry was causing prejudice to the petitioner, he sought quashing of the charge-sheet by and under cw No. 5024/94. Vide judgment and order dated ,15. 10. 1988, the charge-sheet issued to the petitioner was quashed. Appeal preferred by the DDA against the judgment of the learned Single Judge, being LPA No. 60/ 99 was dismissed by the Division Bench on 15. 2. 1999. On 1. 6. 1998, DDA promoted one sh. Randhir Singh as Director (Horticulture ). Petitioner made a representation that he be promoted as Director (Horticulture) on the ground that Randhir Singh was Junior to him. Petitioner also alleged that the departmental Promotion Committee took into account the pendency of the charge- sheet against him at the time when the DPC met and, therefore, the decision of the DPC stood vitiated in as much as it considered the pendency of the charge-sheet against the petitioner, which charge-sheet, as noted above came to be quashed by this court. ( 3 ) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner relying upon the averments made in paras 8 and 9 of the counter affidavit contended that it is the case of the DDA that when the DPC met on 24. 2. 1998, while considering the name of the petitioner as well as Sh. Randhir Singh, the dpc made its recommendations on the basis of the ACRs, vigilance report and other rules governing promotion to the post of Director (Horticulture), and in view of the said statement made in the counter affidavit, directions have to be issued to the DDA to convene a review DPC as on 24,2. 1998 to consider the case of the petitioner for promotion by ignoring the charge-sheet which was issued to the petitioner and since quashed by this court. ( 4 ) MS. 1998 to consider the case of the petitioner for promotion by ignoring the charge-sheet which was issued to the petitioner and since quashed by this court. ( 4 ) MS. Anusuya Salwan, learned counsel for the DDA contended that by mistake, in the counter affidavit, it has come on record that the DPC considered the vigilance report qua the petitioner. She stated that when the DPC met on 24. 2. 1998, vigilance status regarding pendency of a charge-sheet was only indicated qua one candidate, namely Sh. S. K. Bhutt. As far as the petitioner was concerned, charge- sheet was not considered as vigilance status of the petitioner was clear. It may have been a mistake, but fact of the matter remained, argued the counsel that before the DPC it was put up that petitioner was not facing any disciplinary proceedings. She contended that this could be revealed from records of the DPC. ( 5 ) RECORDS of the DPC have been produced in court and I have considered the same. Records show that five persons were considered for promotion. Petitioner and randhir Singh were two of them. Only in respect of Sh. S. K. Bhutt, Vigilance status indicated pendency of disciplinary proceedings and for that reason recommendations pertaining to Sh. S. K. Bhutt were placed in a sealed cover. As far as the petitioner is concerned, recommendation pertaining to him were not put in a sealed cover as his name was considered on the basis that no disciplinary proceedings were pending. The dpc unanimously recommended name of sh. Randhir Singh for promotion and pursuant thereto Sh. Randhir Singh was promoted as director (Horticulture ). ( 6 ) IN view of the record produced which shows that the DPC did not take into account the pendency of the charge-sheet against the petitioner and case of the petitioner was considered for promotion de-hors the charge- sheet, relief as prayed for cannot be granted. ( 7 ) WRIT petition is accordingly dismissed. There shall be, however, no order as to costs.