Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
V. Appala Raju S/O V. Guruvulu vs Union Of India Through Secretary on 12 September, 2011
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL PRINCIPAL BENCH NEW DELHI Original Application No.165 of 2011 This the 12th day of September, 2011 HONBLE SHRI JUSTICE V. K. BALI, CHAIRMAN HONBLE DR. RAMESH CHANDRA PANDA, MEMBER (A) V. Appala Raju S/o V. Guruvulu, R/o A-16, Central Government quarters, 14, Iron Side Road, Kolkata-700019. Applicant ( By Shri S. K. Gupta, Advocate ) Versus 1. Union of India through Secretary, Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue, North Block, New Delhi. 2. Chairman, Central Board of Direct Taxes, Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue, North Block, New Delhi. 3. Director General of Income Tax (Vigilance), First Floor, Dayal Singh Library Building, 1, DDU Marg, Delhi. Respondents ( By Shri V. P. Uppal, Advocate ) O R D E R Justice V. K. Bali, Chairman:
The case of the applicant for promotion to the post of Commissioner of Income Tax was put in sealed cover as in December, 2008 when the DPC met to consider the applicant and others for promotion to the post as mentioned above, he was facing departmental enquiry under rule 14 of the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965, a chargesheet having already been issued. The applicant challenged the departmental proceedings before this Tribunal in OA No.2582/2009, which came to be disposed of along with other connected matters by a common order recorded by the Tribunal on 24.2.2010. The chargesheet against the applicant was quashed, even though the respondents were to be at liberty to proceed with the matter de novo. The only issue that the applicant has raised for our adjudication in the present Original Application filed by him under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 is that when the chargesheet has since already been quashed, with no other impediment in his way and thus, no circumstances exist by which the respondents can continue to keep his case for promotion in sealed cover, the respondents would be obliged to re-open the sealed cover, and if found fit, to promote him.
2. The facts as may relate to the only issue as raised by the applicant, as noted above, reveal that the applicant received a chargesheet on 28.6.2008. In December, 2008 DPC was convened by UPSC, and inasmuch as the applicant was facing the chargesheet, his case for promotion to the post of Commissioner of Income Tax was kept in sealed cover. Promotion orders with regard to others who were even junior to the applicant, were issued on 11.7.2009. The applicant challenged the departmental proceedings initiated against him in this Tribunal in OA No.2582/2009, primarily on the ground that the chargesheet framed against him had since not been approved by the competent authority. Same very issue was raised by number of employees, and, therefore, all such matters were clubbed and came to be disposed of by this Tribunal by common order dated 24.2.2010. It is the case of the applicant that one Shri B. V. Gopinath filed OA in this Tribunal on exactly the same grounds which were taken by the applicant in his OA, and the same was allowed by holding that the chargesheet had to be approved by the disciplinary authority. The respondents challenged the order passed by this Tribunal in the matter of Shri Gopinath in WP(C) No.10452/2009 before the High Court, which has since already been dismissed vide order dated 28.7.2009, upholding the view of this Tribunal. One Shri S. K. Srivastava filed OA in this Tribunal on similar grounds, which too was allowed, which order as well has been upheld by the High Court, confirming the view of this Tribunal. Despite the respondents having implemented the judgment of this Tribunal confirmed by the Honble High Court in the two cases referred to above, no orders for re-opening the sealed cover in the case of the applicant have been passed.
3. Pursuant to notice issued by this Tribunal, the respondents have entered appearance and by filing their counter reply contested the cause of the applicant. There is absolutely no dispute on facts as have been mentioned by the applicant in the OA. All that is stated is that the respondents have filed SLP before the Honble Supreme Court in the case of Shri Gopinath and that the orders in his case have been issued subject to the outcome of the SLP. It is then stated that the sealed cover in the case of the applicant cannot be opened as a criminal charge is pending against the applicant, and in terms of OM dated 14.9.1992, if circumstances may exist under which case of an employee can be put in sealed cover, in view of provisions contained in para 2(iii) of the OM aforesaid, the respondents would be well within their right not to promote the applicant.
4. The applicant has filed rejoinder. As regards the criminal charge, it is the positive case of the applicant that even though challan has been put up in terms of Section 173 Cr.PC in the month of July, 2010, but no charge has been framed, which fact has not been controverted during the course of arguments. As regards the SLP filed by the respondents in the case of Shri Gopinath, it is pleaded that the Law Officer gave opinion for implementing the judgment, as a result whereof sealed cover in respect of Shri Gopinath was opened and promotion order in his case was issued on 15.12.2009, and that the Honble Supreme Court has not granted any stay in the SLP. Copy of the order in the case of Shri Gopinath passed by the Supreme Court on 28.2.2011 has been placed on records to show that only notice has been issued on condonation of delay as well as on the SLP, and the respondent Gopinath was given three weeks time to file counter affidavit.
5. We have heard the learned counsel representing the parties and with their assistance examined the records of the case. In view of the uncontroverted position that in cases of officers in the department of the applicant who filed OAs on exactly the same grounds, which were allowed and against which the writ petitions preferred in the High Court too have been dismissed, sealed covers have been opened and they have been promoted as well, as also that as on today there is nothing against the applicant which may entitle the respondents to keep his case for promotion in sealed cover, inasmuch as insofar as the chargesheet in departmental proceedings against the applicant has since already been quashed, against which no writ has even been filed, and that in the criminal case even the charge has not been framed against the applicant, this OA deserves to be allowed. We accordingly direct the respondents to open the sealed cover in the case of the applicant as regards his promotion on the post of Commissioner of Income Tax, and if found fit, to promote him. Let the exercise as ordained above, be completed as expeditiously as possible and definitely within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. There shall, however, be no order as to costs.
( Dr. Ramesh Chandra Panda ) ( V. K. Bali )
Member (A) Chairman
/as/