Jagdish Prasad v. Food Corporation of India, New Delhi
2012-07-16
ALOK SINGH
body2012
DigiLaw.ai
ORDER 1. Petitioner has invoked writ jurisdiction of this Court assailing the order dated 09.03.2005 passed by Deputy Zonal Manager (East), Food Corporation of India, thereby rejecting the representation of the petitioner and further to issue writ of Mandamus commanding the respondents to give effect to the promotional order dated 08.11.2004. 2. Perusal of the order dated 08.11.2004 (Annexure1) would reveal that petitioner's name finds place at serial no. 17. Employees, mentioned in the order dated 08.11.2004, were directed to be promoted on the grade of Deputy Manager (General) on purely adhoc basis with the stipulation that before giving effect to the order of promotion, Zonal Manager/SRM/Head of the Division should ensure that no vigilance case is pending against the officers directed to be given adhoc promotion. 3. Perusal of the impugned order dated 09.03.2005 would reveal that, as per the condition no. 7 of the promotion order, senior officers tried to find out as to whether Vigilance case was pending against the petitioner. On enquiry, it was found that a C.B.I. (criminal case) bearing R.C. Case No. 14(A)/1994PAT dated 11.05.1994 was pending against the petitioner and sanction to prosecute the petitioner was also granted by the competent authority. 4. In view of the pendency of the criminal case (C.B.I.), order dated 08.11.2004 was not implemented and petitioner was denied adhoc promotion. 5. Ms. Ritu Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner, while referring to Annexure5 (page 24 of the paper book), has vehemently argued that as per the circular of the F.C.I., if Disciplinary/Court proceedings are not concluded even after the expiry of two years from the date of the D.P.C., promotion as recommended by the D.P.C. may be given effect to. 6. Since the petitioner's name was never recommended in the D.P.C. and petitioner along with other employees were given promotion only on adhoc basis, therefore, circular has no application in the present case. 7. Consequently, the writ petition is misconceived and same stands dismissed. A.F.R.