Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2008 DIGILAW 1120 (JHR)

Union of India v. Jai Krishna Pandey

2008-09-15

D.K.SINHA, GYAN SUDHA MISRA

body2008
Judgment This writ petition has been filed by Union of India through the Director General, Council of Scientific and Industrial Research, New Delhi challenging the order dated 28.03.2008 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Circuit Bench at Ranchi by which the learned Tribunal had been pleased to grant liberty to the respondent/petitioner-Union of India to open the seal cover of the Departmental Promotion Committee( in short ‘D.P.C.’) and grant benefit to the respondent herein, if he had been found fit by the D.P.C. for promotion on the post of Scientist E-1. The aforesaid order was passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal on an application filed by the respondent herein who had filed application inter alia raising a grievance, that though his case for promotion was referred to the D.P.C. and D.P.C. has already considered the case of his promotion after which it kept the decision in a sealed cover, the same has not been opened on the ground that a departmental proceeding had been initiated against him. The learned Members of the Tribunal, after hearing the counsel for the parties, was pleased to hold that a meeting of the D.P.C. in regard to the promotion of the respondent herein was held on 30.11.2005 and the memorandum of charge-sheet was served on the respondent on 30.12.2005. Under the circumstance, it was held that the departmental proceeding having been initiated after conclusion of the meeting of the D.P.C., the decision of the D.P.C. which was kept in a sealed cover, was fit to be opened and if the D.P.C. found him fit for promotion, the same be granted to him. However, liberty was granted to the authorities to proceed with the departmental proceeding as per the charge-sheet already issued on him. Hence, it can reasonably be inferred that liberty has already been granted to the petitioner to take action against the respondent. Assailing the order passed by the Tribunal, it was contended that initiation of departmental proceeding cannot be held to have started on 30.12.2005 as the authorities had already taken a decision to initiate departmental proceeding against the respondent although the charge-sheet was issued to him after the meeting of the D.P.C. on 30.12.2005. However, we do not feel impressed with this argument in view of the ratio of the decision of the Supreme Court delivered in the matter of Union of India & Ors.Vs. However, we do not feel impressed with this argument in view of the ratio of the decision of the Supreme Court delivered in the matter of Union of India & Ors.Vs. K.V.Jankiraman & Ors, reported in (1991) 4 SCC 109 ) wherein it has held that the decision of the D.P.C. cannot be allowed to be affected by a departmental proceeding which had been initiated after the meeting of the D.P.C. was held. As already stated, in the instant matter, the meeting of the D.P.C. was held on 30.11.2005 and the decision of the D.P.C. was kept in a sealed cover and after a period of one month, the memorandum of charge-sheet was issued on the respondent on 30.12.2005 from which it is obvious that the departmental proceeding was finally initiated after the meeting of the D.P.C. had concluded and all the materials that were available before the D.P.C. while considering the case of the respondent had already been taken into account. Hence it is reasonable to infer that the D.P.C. must have taken a decision in regard to the respondent’s promotion after considering all the available materials which were placed before it. Learned counsel for the respondent also further explained the position and submitted that the departmental proceeding is in regard to the charge which was levelled against the respondent along with more than 20 persons and as per the charge-sheet, the respondent along with 19 persons had been alleged to have entered into the office of the Director, Central Institute of Mining & Fuel Research and abused him. It was explained that the respondent was not even a member of that group and the officer who was heading the group, has not even been charge-sheeted. Be that as it may, the fact remains that the D.P.C. can be presumed to have considered all aspects before considering the case of the respondent and hence subsequent issuance of charge-sheet could not have been allowed to affect the proceeding of the D.P.C. granting promotion to the respondent. We, therefore, find no reason to interfere with the order passed by the Tribunal as we have noticed that the departmental proceeding had been initiated against the respondent after the meeting of the D.P.C. was held. We, therefore, find no reason to interfere with the order passed by the Tribunal as we have noticed that the departmental proceeding had been initiated against the respondent after the meeting of the D.P.C. was held. Under the circumstance, if the Tribunal has taken a view that the sealed cover be opened since the meeting of the D.P.C. was held prior to initiation of the departmental proceeding, we see no reason to interfere with the same. Besides this, the petitioner-U.O.I. is not without a remedy for If the respondent is ultimately found guilty of the charge after conclusion of the departmental proceeding, action may be taken against him at a subsequent stage also. Thus, we find no merit in this petition. Consequently, it is dismissed.