Delhi High Court
Mr. R.S. Srivastava vs Managing Director & Acting Chairman, ... on 12 August, 1999
Equivalent citations: 81(1999)DLT579
Author: K. Ramamoorthy
Bench: K. Ramamoorthy
JUDGMENT K. Ramamoorthy, J.
1. The petitioner was working as Assistant General Manager and the next post under which he could be promoted was the post of General Manager. On 26.11.1990 a FIR was filed against him. Thereafter, in December, 1993 the CBI sought permission from the respondent Department to prosecute the petitioner. In 1994 the Department Promotion Committee had to consider the candidates for promotion. Inspite of there being FIR against the petitioner, his case was put up before the DPC and after considering his case the result was kept in the sealed cover. The CBI had given the final report in July, 1994 and now the matter is pending before the Designated Court. No charge has yet been framed against the petitioner in the criminal proceedings.
2. The learned Counsel for the petitioner Mr. V.K. Rao submitted that as per the policy declared by the respondent on 21.10.1992 the sealed cover can be followed only if the designated Court had taken cognizance in the matter but could be said only if the designated Court has framed charge against the petitioner. Mr. Rao relied upon the judgment of the Supreme Court reported in 1990 Cr.L.J. 1869.
3. The learned Counsel referring to Union of India v. K.V. Jankiraman etc., submitted that the ratio in that case also, though referred to in the policy dated 21.10.1992 had not been followed by the respondent.
4. The main crux of the argument of Mr. Rao is that once Criminal Court had not framed any charge, there is no case pending against the petitioner and, therefore, the respondent has to open the sealed cover and whatever be the decision of the DPC that has to be given effect. The learned Counsel relied upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in State of Andhra Pradesh v. Radhakrishan, that whenever there is delay in the proceedings against the petitioner which would prejudice the case of the petitioner that itself is a fact to be taken note of and relief should be granted to the petitioner, though that case related to dealing in disciplinary proceedings taken by the Department concerned.
5. As per the policy declared by the respondent on 21.10.1992 whenever a criminal case is pending against an officer concerned, the procedure prescribed in Jankiraman's case has to be followed. The designated Court had not framed charge and when the criminal proceedings will be completed, according to the learned Counsel Mr. Rao, is not known and the petitioner cannot wait indefinitely and his juniors are getting promoted and the attitude of the respondent would considerably prejudice the rights of the petitioner.
6. In the light of the fact that there is a criminal case pending against the petitioner he cannot hope to get any clearance from the Department with reference to his promotion. In a way, the respondent had taken a lenient view and had adopted civil procedure. Eventually, when the petitioner is acquitted by the Criminal Court he will get all the benefits. Till such time, the petitioner cannot be heard to say that the decision of the DPC in a sealed cover should be given effect to.
7. I am not inclined to exercise my discretion. Accordingly, the writ petition stands dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.