Central Administrative Tribunal - Madras
P.V. Balasubramani And Anr. vs Director Of Enforcement Rep. By Union Of ... on 7 June, 2007
Equivalent citations: 2008(1)SLJ123(CAT)
ORDER R. Ganesan, Member (A)
1. The applicants in the two O.As. have sought the following reliefs:
O.A.789/2006(i) To call for the records relating to Order No. F. No. C-3/19/2002, dated 14.08.2006 passed by the respondent and quash the same;
(ii) to direct the respondent to promote the applicant to the post of Chief Enforcement Officer w.e.f. 1.1.1998 with all consequential benefits including arrears and pay and allowance and consideration for promotion to the next higher post on par with his juniors.O.A. 790/2006
(i) To call for the records relating to Order No. F. No. C-3/19/2002, dated 14.08.2006 passed by the respondent and quash the same;
(ii) to award costs, and pass such further and other orders as may be deemed fit and proper and thus render justice;
As the issues involved in the above two O.As. are same, both these O.As. are disposed of by this common order.
The applicant in O.A. 789/2006 entered service as Assistant Enforcement Officer on 15.6.1974. In 1982, he was promoted as Enforcement Officer (E.O.) on ad hoc basis and regularised in 1986 and by order dated 26.6.1996, he was transferred to Hyderabad and subsequently to other places and finally to Chennai by order dated 18.8.2002 where he is presently posted as E.O.
2. The applicant in O.A. 790/2006 entered service as Assistant Enforcement Officer on 16.2.1976. In 1988 he was promoted as Enforcement Officer (E.O.) on ad hoc basis and by order dated 26.6.1996, he was posted as E.O. at Chennai.
3. The applicants in these two O.As. contended that in 1994, certain E.Os. in Hyderabad conducted a search resulting in seizure of certain documents which revealed the commission of offences under the provisions of Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 (FERA) and initiated prosecution against the persons involved who were found to be very affluent and powerful. According to the applicant in O.A. 790/2006, the accused threatened him and other officials that they would take revenge for having initiated proceedings against them. They, therefore, made false allegations against him and his colleague who is the applicant in O.A. 789/2006 in the Trial Court by fabricating certain documents and materials for the said purpose.
4. The applicant in O.A. 789/2006 stated that he was posted at Hyderabad only in 1996 and had no role in the search and seizure, interrogation of the parties, recording of statement of the alleged events, whereas, the accused during prosecution threatened him and other officials to take revenge for pursuing proceedings against them.
5. The applicants in O.A. 789/1996 and O.A. 790/1996 were issued with separate charge memos dated 13.8.1996 as under:
Charge in O.A. 789/2006During the course of Prosecution Proceedings certain material/evidence was produced by the accused persons, before the Hon'ble Court which inter-alia revealed various acts of seriousmis-conduct attributable to Shri P.V. Balasubramani Enforcement Officer, then posted at Hyderabad, the revelations made include those relating to discussions/confabulations between Shri P.V. Balasubramani. Enforcement Officer and S/Shri Mustafa Ahmed Alvi and Nissar Ahmed Alvi held in a room in Hotel Jay International, Hyderabad where the said Shri P.V. Balasubramani, Enforcement Officer was then staying; this meeting which lasted for about 50 minutes centered around the case of Enforcement Directorate against the aforementioned persons and that during these discussions Shri P.V. Balasubramani not only commented adversely upon the course of investigations, interrogations etc., conducted in this case, but also rendered advice besides assured them that he will be doing his best for helping them in this case against monetary considerations.
Besides the above Shri P.V. Balasubramani Enforcement Officer, also accepted a bribe in the sum of Rs. 3000 from Shri Mustafa Ahmed Alvi during the course of this very meeting.Charge in O.A. 790/2006
That further the said Shri F. Kader Mydecn, Enforcement Officer, during the aforementioned period, communicated certain facts/information which had come to his knowledge during the discharge of his official functioning as Enforcement Officer, in respect of a case in which prosecution had been launched by the Enforcement Directorate, to the persons who were facing trial as accused in the said case and accepted Rs. 5,000 from the accused in consideration of aforesaid act.
6. The applicant in O.A. 790/2006 gave a detailed reply dated 16.12.1998 denying the charge and the applicant in O.A. 789/2006 also denied the charges by his reply dated 18.12.1998. According to them, a detailed enquiry was held into the said charge against each of them. They contended that the Enquiry Officer by his report dated 20.2.2004 held the charges not proved, pointing out inter alia that the applicant in O.A. 789/2006 had joined the Hyderabad Office only in 1996 and not associated himself in search and seizure, interrogation of parties, recording of statement and prosecution. In respect of applicants in both O.As., the I.O. found that the date, time and other particulars of the alleged events pertaining to the charge have not been proved, that no tenable evidence was produced before him, that none of the documents relief upon had a direct bearing on the charges framed. However, the respondents communicated a Memo dated 6.5.2004 to both the applicants, separately proposing to disagree with the findings of the Enquiry Officer on four grounds as under:
(i) That it is not necessary for a witness to state the date and time of events specifically;
(ii) that since the application filed by the accused persons in the Court for producing video cassettes has been marked as Exh S-3, the video cassettes are deemed to be evidence, even though they have not been produced or marked in evidence;
(iii) that the inadmissibility of video cassettes in evidence in a Court of law is immaterial for departmental proceedings;
(iv) that the findings of the Inquiry Officer that none of the documents relied upon has a direct bearing on the charge is patently wrong because of the reliance on Exb S-3.
7. The applicants submitted detailed representations dated 16.6.2004 showing that the findings of the Enquiry Officer were well reasoned and correct and that there was no evidence to prove any of the elements of the charge. Subsequently, after more than two years, another charge memo dated 14.8.2006 containing the same charge was served upon each of the applicants as under:
O.A. 789/2006That Shri P.V. Balasubraniani, Enforcement Officer, Enforcement Directorate, Chennai while posted in Hyderabad, during his stay in Room No. 305, Hotel Jaya International, Hyderabad between 15.01.1997 to 22.02.1997 committed gross misconduct and acted in a manner unbecoming of a public servant and failed to maintain absolute integrity and devotion to duty in as much as he, during his stay in room No. 305, Hotel Jaya International, Hyderabad between 15.01.1997 to 22.02.1997 demanded and accepted an illegal gratification of Rs. 5000 from Shri Mohd. Mustafa Alvi for giving the loopholes of the FERA case registered against Shri Mohd. Mustafa Alvi and others.
That Mohd Mustafa Alvi, Nisar Ahmed Alvi and Naval Kumar Sharma @ Narendra, the accused persons in FERA case No. T-3/CP-313/HYD/94 registered at Enforcement Directorate, Hyderabad, were kept in illegal custody between 27.08.1994 to 29.08.1994 and, during the said period, they were tortured by applying third degree methods for extracting confessional statements and illegal gratification by a team of Enforcement Directorate Officials including Shri P.V. Balasubramani.O.A. 790/2006
That on 27.06.1997 Shri F. Khader Mydeen, Enforcement Officer Enforcement Directorate Chennai Committed gross-misconduct and acted in a manner unbecoming of a public servant and failed to maintain absolute integrity and devotion to duty in as much as he, on 26.06.1997, demanded and accepted an illegal gratification of Rs. 5,000 from Shri Mohd. Mustafa Alvi for giving favourable evidence during the trial of FERA case in CC No. 28/1995 on the file of Spl. Judge for Economic Offences, Hyderabad.
That Mohd. Mustafa Alvi, Nisar Ahmed Alvi and Naval Kumar Sharma @ Narendra the accused persons in FERA case No. T-3/CP-313/HYD/94 registered at Enforcement Directorate, Hyderabad, were kept in illegal custody between 27.8.1994 and during the said period they were tortured by third degree methods for extracting confessional statements and illegal gratification by a team of Enforcement Directorate officials including Shri F. Khader Mydeen.
8. The applicants contended that the re-issue of the charge sheet as above is clearly arbitrary and illegal and no formal order was communicated with regard to first charge memo but in the Statement of Imputation, it was stated that the Disciplinary Authority decided that the charge sheet dated 13.8.1998 should be superceded by a fresh charge sheet after incorporating fresh evidence forwarded by the CBI. The applicants added that the so called fresh evidence was already available with the respondents at the time of framing the charge memos and conducting the inquiry and for reasons best known to the department, the same were not relied upon or even produced in evidence and the respondent is attempting to fill up the lacunae in evidence, after realising that the findings of the Inquiry Officer that the charge was no proved is legally unassailable. They submitted that it is well established that a person cannot be vexed twice on the same charge. The applicants also made representations dated 30.8.2006. They added that under Rule 29A of CCS (CCA) Rules, it is only the President who has power to review any order.
9. The applicant in O.A. 790/2006 stated that in the impugned charge memo, it is stated that in the earlier charge sheet, it was alleged that the applicant accepted the bribe of Rs. 3,000 and the same is now altered to Rs. 5,000, whereas, the earlier charge memo also staled the same amount of Rs. 5,000 thus indicating non-application of mind by the respondents in issuing the impugned charge memo. The applicant in O.A. 789/2006, however, staled that the initial charge sheet contained that he had taken a bribe of Rs. 3,000 while the impugned second charge sheet shows that the amount of Rs. 5000 and hence he also submitted there was non-applicalion of mind on the part of the respondents while re-issuing the impugned charge sheet.
10. The applicants added that the department could not prove the charges framed against them as the Enquiry Officer had submitted a well considered report with well reasoned findings exonerating them. The action of the respondents in issuing the charge memo containing similar charge by including new material and documents which were very much available during enquiry, is arbitrary. The respondents are doing so to fill up the lacunae in evidence after the entire enquiry had been completed.
11. The applicants further submitted that the events which took place shown in the charge memos related to 1994 and although the material were available with the Department, the respondents failed to produce them during the enquiry and the delay of 12 years would cause severe prejudice to them and they cannot be expected to recall all the events at this stage. Other potential witnesses have left their service and their where abouts are not known. For instance, Mr. P.B. Thakur, former Chief Enforcement Officer who can defend them has left service. Even departmental witness Mr. R.K.S. Nim has died.
12. The applicant in O.A. 789/2006 further added that his juniors C.N. Das, S.B. Kaur, V. Manickam and A.K. Narang have been promoted on 11.11.1998 to the post of Chief Enforcement Officer. In the DPC held on 30.11.1997, the applicant was empanelled for promotion to the post of Chief Enforcement Officer but was not promoted as the first charge memo was issued to him on 30.8.1998. Subsequently his juniors have also been promoted to the post of Assistant Dircctor-I in July 2006. As the disciplinary proceedings to the charge memo dated 13.8.1998 have been revoked following his exoneration, the applicant ought to have been promoted as Chief Enforcement Officer w.e.f. 11.11.1998 on par with his juniors with all consequential benefits.
13. For these reasons, the applicants have filed the O.As. seeking relief as prayed for.
14. The respondents have replied denying the averments made in the O.A. while confirming the basic facts. They stated that the contention of the applicant in O.A. 790/2006 that the accused persons threatened the applicant and his colleague in O.A. 789/2006 is an after thought. They also denied having fabricated certain documents and materials against certain persons. According to them, the applicants were posted in Hyderabad during the period of misconduct as alleged in the charge sheet was committed by them. They stated that the findings reached by the Enquiry Officer was not accepted by the Disciplinary Authority as it was felt that the Enquiry Officer had not made proper appreciation of evidence that had come on record. The details of some are available in the tentative view of the Disciplinary Authority communicated to the applicants in letter dated 6.5.2004. While their representations dated 16.6.2004 were under consideration, a report from CBI was received which had made investigation under the orders of the Hon'ble Court into the allegations of accused persons based on video recordings on certain persons video tapped by accused persons and this necessitated issuance of fresh charges to certain officers including the applicants. As such, after completing necessary formalities which consisted of taking advise from the Administrative Ministry/Central Vigilance Commission, fresh charge sheets were issued to them on 14.8.2006 separately. The fact that fresh charge sheet has been issued in supersession of the first charge sheet has also been mentioned clearly in the last para of the Statement of imputations in each charge sheet. Hence, they added that the action of the respondents cannot be considered arbitrary and aillegal as alleged by the applicants.
15. The evidence in the form of video tape by accused persons was collected by the CBI Hyderabad in pursuance to the directions give by the Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad on Appeal No. 2523/1998 and as these were not available with the respondents when the initial charge sheet dated 13.8.1998 was issued as the same were exhibits of the prosecution proceedings launched by the respondents against the parties involved in FERA violation in the Trial Court. They also stated that Rule 29-A only talks of inherent powers of the President to review any order and this has been misconstrued by the applicants in stating that only President is empowered to review the order. The fresh charge memo issued to the applicants is not the final order passed under Rule 14 of CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 and they are merely a show cause notices issued affording an opportunity to explain their allegations made in their memos and put forth the defence. They added that there is no question of any person being vexed twice since the first charge sheets simultaneously stood cancelled when the fresh charge sheets are issued. Further there, is no legal bar to the initiation of departmental/disciplinary action under the Rules applicable to the public servants when criminal prosecution is already in progress and as the interest of the case may suffer with the passage of time, the respondents had chosen to simultaneously go ahead with the disciplinary proceedings along with criminal proceedings.
16. As for O.A. 789/2006, the respondents denied that the applicant had been exonerated because only inquiry report has been received and it had not been accepted by the Disciplinary Authority and the earlier charge memo issued to the applicant has been superceded by a fresh/second charge memo. For the reasons explained supra, his claim for promotion pending disciplinary proceedings, is to be considered in the light of the standing guidelines on the subject and for this sealed cover procedure is being adopted whenever DPC meets. For these reasons, the respondents pleaded for dismissal of the O.As.
17. The applicants have filed separate rejoinders reiterating their averments made in the O.As. They have also stated that a perusal of the enquiry report would be lie the claim of the respondents that video recording, all evidence and connected documents were not available with them at the time of issue of the first charge sheet. The Enquiry Officer in his report at Para 24 and in other places including in the summary of proceedings given by the Presenting Officer and even in the disagreement memo dated 6.5.2004 references have been made to the video cassettes and hence, the respondents could have used these, had they so desired even at the time of enquiry in the first charge sheets against the applicants. According to the applicant in O.A. 789/2006, the DPC was held on 13.11.1997 while the fresh charge memo was issued on 13.8.1998 and as there was no charge memo when the DPC was held on 13.11.1997, the question of sealed cover should not arise and subsequent DPC decisions are liable to be nullified and quashed based on the decision of the DPC dated 13.11.1997.
18. We have heard the learned Counsel for the applicants and the respondents and perused the relevant records of the case carefully.
19. The learned Counsel for the applicants strongly argued that there is no rule that the second charge sheet can be issued especially without cancelling the first charge sheet, further in the irregularly issued second charge sheet, certain factual charges have also been made and the stand of the respondents that fresh evidence came in the form of video cassette is totally untenable because these were in the possession of the respondents and they chose not to press these as evidence at the time of enquiry in the first charge sheet issued in 1998, and when the Enquiry Officer exonerated the applicants, the respondents have chosen to issue the disagreement memo not only after a lapse of six years but also issued a fresh charge memo without any authority only to harass the applicants who have been suffering from the effects of the charge sheet for over 10 years as the incident in which the applicants were allegedly involved related to June 1996. He also relied on the following decisions to justify that the disciplinary proceedings cannot be sustained after prolonged delay.
(i) Union of India v. A.K. Mathew and Ors. 2006 Writ LR 711, (Hon'ble High Court of Madras).
7. With regard to the next contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner that though the Disciplinary Authority has dropped the charges by an order dated 25.3.91, but the review order has been passed only in the year 1998, which is after a lapse of seven years and the same is due to the fact that as the matter has been dealt with stage by stage by the departmental authorities delay has crept in taking action against the delinquents. Though the argument of the learned Counsel, on the fact of it sounds attractive, yet for the reason that Disciplinary Authority has dropped the charges as early as in the year 1991 and the review order has been passed only in the year 1998 after a lapse of seven years, we could safely hold that the said order has not been passed within a reasonable time and seven years period is too long a time and the same cannot be terms as a reasonable time by any stretch of imagination.
8. ...
9. ...That apart, as stated above, for the occurrence that took place in the year 1984, punishment has been imposed in the year 1998, by which time, the respective respondent reached the age of superannuation, and enforcing the said penalty will have a consequence of their pension and we see no merit to uphold the penalty.
(Emphasis added)
(ii) Canara Bank and Ors. v. Swapan Kumar Pani and Anr. .
...In this case, however, admittedly two charge-sheets were issued and atleast in one of them the first respondent was exonerated. The said order attained finality. The second one was not pursued despite a report having been submitted by the inquiry officer evidently because of the first disciplinary proceeding. As the first respondent was exonerated there was no question of enhancement of punishment and in that view of the matter second part of Regulation 18 had also no application. As no order had been passed extending the time, evidently the power under Regulation 21 had also not been exercised. We may notice that the first respondent was exonerated by an order dated 25.7.1995 i.e. After a period of 6 years, which was much beyond the period of limitation. The power was also not exercised within a reasonable time.
(Emphasis added)
(iii) In Muklesh Ali v. State of Assam , the Hon'ble Supreme Court had quashed the notice issued the appellant forest officer seeking to open the departmental proceedings that had been concluded in his favour and the respondents were directed to consider him for promotion with other consequential benefits at the relevant point of time.
(iv) In G.M. Tank v. State of Gujarat and Ors. , the departmental enquiry and the criminal proceedings were based on the same set of facts, charges, evidence and witnesses. As there was no evidence against the employee to hold him guilty, the employee was honourably acquitted in the criminal trial during pendency of proceedings challenging dismissal and the findings to the contrary recorded in departmental proceedings in such case is unjust, unfair and oppressive and dismissal order was not sustainable.
Citing these decisions of Hon'ble Supreme Court and High Court of Madras supra, the learned Counsel for the applicants pleaded for allowing the reliefs in favour of the applicants in the context of the settled law and because the applicants have been subjected illegally to the second charge sheet in respect of the alleged event of 1996, when in the first charge of 1998, they have been exonerated by the Enquiry Officer.
20. On the other hand, the learned Counsel for the respondents contended that there is provision to issue a fresh charge sheet superceding an earlier one in accordance with the vigilance manual, wherein, it is stated that during the course of enquiry, if it appeared necessary to amend the charge sheet, the same can be done. She also relied on the DG (P & T) orderdated 5.7.1999 which states that "the Disciplinary Authorities would be debarred from initiating fresh proceedings against the delinquent officers unless the reasons for cancellation of the original charge sheet or for dropping proceedings are appropriately mentioned and it is duly stated in the order that the proceedings were being dropped without prejudice to further action which may be considered in the circumstances of the case."
21. Further she also cited the following decisions to contend the applicants' claim for the relief's sought for in the O.A:
Union of India and Anr. v. Ashok Kacker 1995 Supp. (1) SCC 180 Admittedly, the respondent has not yet submitted his reply to the charge sheet and the respondent rushed to the Central Administrative Tribunal merely on the information that a charge sheet to this effect was to be issued to him. The Tribunal entertained the respondent's application at that premature stage and quashed the charge sheet issued during the pendency of the matter before the Tribunal on a ground which even the learned Counsel for the respondent made no attempt to support. The respondent has the full opportunity to reply to the charge sheet and to raise all the points available to him including those which are now urged on his behalf by learned Counsel for the respondent. In our opinion, this was not the stage at which the Tribunal ought to have entertained such an application for quashing the charge sheet and the appropriate course for the respondent to adopt is to file his reply to the charge sheet and invite the decision of the Disciplinary Authority thereon. This being the stage at which the respondent had rushed to the Tribunal, we do not consider it necessary to require the Tribunal at this stage to examine any other point which may be available to the respondent or which may have been raised by him.
(Emphasis added) She also relied on the following decisions to justify that when the final decision is yet to be taken, it is premature on the part of the respondents to interfere:
(i) K. Ganesa v. Department of Telecom decided on 21.1.2004 O.A. 698 of 2003 C.A.T. Bangalore Bench.
(ii) Monica Jawa v. Director of Education decided on 12.2.2004 (High Court, Delhi) "where multiple charge sheets were issued, withdrawing the earlier ones, the last charge sheet was sustained."
(iii) Jagdish Narayan Singh v. Union of India and Ors. C.W.P. 1152/2001 decided on 29.5.2001 - Hon'ble High Court, Delhi where correction of a mistake, the charge memo is upheld.
In the case of Punjab National Bank and Ors. v. Kunj Behari Misra , Their Lordships have observed that "the principles of natural justice as we have already observed, required the authority which has to take a final decision and can impose a penalty to give an opportunity to the officer charged of misconduct to file a representation before the Disciplinary Authority records his findings on the charges framed against an officer," and hence the learned Counsel added that the respondents herein have not yet finalised the first charge sheet and hence the issue of second charge sheet in supersession of the first one is an effort to give the applicant the opportunity they needed to defend their case. The respondents Counsel added that the Tribunal cannot interfere at this stage as it is premature, in accordance with the decisions cited supra.
22. Having considered the rival submissions carefully, we agree with the applicants that the respondents were in possession of the video cassettes which were now relied upon in the fresh charge sheets issued by them and had the respondents wanted, they could have easily included these in the enquiry proceedings at the time of enquiry conducted by the Enquiry Officer for the first charge sheets. The respondents failed to do so, perhaps, hoping that they can establish the charges without these materials in evidence. After having found that the Enquiry Officer had held the charges as not proved, they have issued the fresh charge memos to the applicants inducting these video cassettes as fresh evidence. We find that the respondents cannot achieve now what they had failed to achieve at the relevant point of time when the first charge sheets were initially issued, by trying to reopen the enquiry proceedings, by pressing the evidence of video cassettes which were in their full knowledge as established from the various documents such as inquiry report, disagreement memo etc., and which were within their reach, to push into the first enquiry, had they so desired at that point of time.
23. Further, we find that the decisions relied upon by the learned Counsel for the respondents are not helpful as the facts and circumstances of the cases herein are entirely at variance with those cited relating to e.g. promotion, premature intervention by Court on transfer matter, mistakes in charge sheet can be corrected and opportunity to be given to the charged officer to represent his case before its finalisation while the respondents in the O. As. under discussion consciously omitted the material evidence in their possession initially and reissued fresh charge sheets including those material evidences only when the Enquiring Authority exonerated the applicants after the formal enquiry.
24. We find that the respondents have not strictly followed the procedure required for issue of fresh charge sheet even assuming that the applicants are governed by the orders of the DOP&T dated 5.7.1979 as claimed by them. The said order envisages cancellation of the original charge sheet with clear direction in the said order that the proceedings are being dropped without prejudice to further action. However, we find that in the fresh charge sheet issued by the respondents dated 14.8.2006, the memorandum did not contain any such provision but only in the statement of imputation, the following observation has been made in the case of the applicant in O.A. 790/2006, "in view of the reasons given in the preceding paragraphs, the charge sheet issued on 13.8.1998 is hereby cancelled and this memorandum is issued in supersession of the earlier memorandum No. C-3/29/97 dated 13.8.1998" and for the applicant in O.A. 789/2006, "in view of the reasons given in the preceding paragraphs, this Memo is issued in supersession of the earlier Memo No. C-3/29/97 dated 13.8.1998".
25. Therefore, the charge sheets issued subsequently on 14.8.2006 were not preceded by any orders, dropping of any earlier charge sheets and we cannot consider the 'proviso' given in the statement of imputation at the end, is good enough to justify the respondents' claim that the Memo dated 14.8.2006 is a fresh charge sheet in superssions of the earlier one. We are not convinced with the stand of the respondents in this regard. The applicant has also cited several decisions of the Hon'ble Apex Court and also that of the Hon'ble High Court of Madras to justify that the respondents cannot issue a fresh charge sheet superceding the earlier one that too after a lapse of several years.
26. Applying the ratio of the above decisions of the Hon'ble Apex Court and the High Court of Madras to the facts of the present O.As., we are convinced that the respondents have no legal ground to issue a fresh charge sheet dated 14.8.2006 in the manner in which they have done by inducting fresh material evidences which were in their knowledge even when the first charge sheets were issued and that enquiry led to the Enquiry Officer exonerating the applicant and without the properly cancelling the first charge sheet, though we do not subscribe to the respondents' relying on DG P&T order for such a purpose, while CVC guidelines speaks of fresh issue of charge sheet only during the course of enquiry and not after inquiry is complete and the respondents thereafter had also issued a disagreement memo. Therefore, these impugned charge sheets in respect of the applicants in O.As. 789/2006 and 790/2006 are required to be quashed and hence they are quashed. However, we given liberty to the respondents to finalise the disciplinary proceedings based on the enquiry reports submitted in the first charge sheets dated 13.8.1998 against the applicants in both the O.As. and also based on the disagreement memo of the respondents dated 6.5.2006 and from that stage, the respondents are at liberty to take appropriate decision within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. We also direct the respondents to take necessary decision in respect of the promotion of the applicant in O.A. 789/2006 based on the DPC said to have been held on 13.11.1997 keeping in view the fact that the first charge sheet was issued only on 13.8.1998 in accordance with the extant orders on the subject and issue necessary orders to that effect within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The O.As. are allowed as above with no order as to costs.