Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Arindam Lahiri vs Union Of India Through on 20 October, 2008
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL PRINCIPAL BENCH NEW DELHI O.A. NO.783/2008 M.A. NO.1340/2008 This the 20th day of October, 2008 HONBLE SHRI JUSTICE V. K. BALI, CHAIRMAN HONBLE SHRI L. K. JOSHI, VICE-CHAIRMAN (A) Arindam Lahiri, Commissioner of Income Tax, House No.186, Prestige Samudra Darshan-D, Cacra Village, Telegaon, Goa-403206. Applicant ( By Shri D. C. Pandey, Advocate ) Versus 1. Union of India through Secretary, Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue, North Block, New Delhi. 2. Central Board of Direct Taxes, Department of Revenue, Ministry of Finance, Government of India, North Block, New Delhi. Respondents ( By Shri R. V. Sinha, Advocate ) O R D E R Justice V. K. Bali, Chairman:
Arindam Lahiri, the applicant herein, presently holding the post of Commissioner of Income Tax, in the matter of his promotion to the post of Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, has been overlooked by as many as 55 of his juniors for one reason or the other. At one time, as per the case set out by the applicant, he was promoted and even asked to give choice for his place of posting out of the three options made available to him. His promotion has, however, not come about as yet. The applicant takes serious exception to his non-promotion, which is said to be illegal, arbitrary, unlawful and capricious. On the facts to be referred hereinafter, as set out by him, the prayer made by the applicant in the present Original Application filed under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 is to direct the respondents to forthwith grant him appropriate posting as Chief Commissioner of Income Tax (hereinafter to be referred as CCIT) in terms of their communication dated 23.12.2005 and, in any case, on 6.10.2007 consequent upon lapse of the penalty order dated 7.10.2004 effective for three years. He seeks yet another direction to the respondents to grant him appropriate posting to the post of CCIT with effect from 27.12.2007, when the respondents came up with order dated 27.12.2007 releasing the list of promotion to the post of CCIT in respect of officers much junior to the applicant, and further vide order dated 10.3.2008, while ignoring the applicant without any lawful, justifiable or cogent reasons and withholding his due and lawful posting to the said post. He also prays for a direction to the respondents to convene/hold review DPC to give effect and grant appropriate posting as CCIT to him without further delay.
2. While giving narration of facts for the reliefs as set out above, it is pleaded by the applicant that he joined the respondents in the year 1972 as Income Tax Officer after qualifying the competitive examination held on all India basis. It is his case that he had a very bright and attractive future prospective, which he had all along his service tenure been expecting on the basis of his devoted, diligent, sincere and dedicated efforts shown and displayed by him in due discharge of his official duties. It is further his case that right from beginning he has been a meritorious candidate and has an unblemished service record till certain imputations were levelled against him in the year 1994. He got timely promotions since his joining as the Income Tax Officer, qualifying the competitive examination on 27.11.1972, and was promoted as Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax on 31.1.1982, and as Commissioner of Income Tax on 31.1.1990. He was promoted as Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) on 31.10.1994. He has excellent ACRs awarded to him except when during the year 1994 while he was holding a quasi judicial post and was acting as Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Mumbai, certain allegations were levelled against him in terms of charge memo dated 21/24.11.1995. The imputations subject matter of the charge memo were in respect of matters dealt with by him. There would be no need to give details of the enquiry held against the applicant as that would not be much relevant for the purpose of deciding the present Application. Suffice it, however, to say that he was imposed a penalty of reduction by three stages in the time scale of pay for a period of three years with further direction that he would not earn increments of pay during the period of such reduction, and the reduction would have the effect of postponing his future increments of pay, and further that against the order of punishment, his OA No.189/2005 was dismissed by this Tribunal vide order dated 27.1.2005, against which, admittedly, a writ is pending disposal before the High Court of Delhi. While issuing show cause notice to the respondents as to why rule nisi be not issued returnable on 22.11.2006, on the contention raised by the counsel for the applicant that although the penalty imposed was of stoppage of three increments, the applicants apprehension was that on account of the said penalty the respondents were not even considering him for promotion, the counsel representing the respondents sought time to seek instructions on the above submission of the counsel for the applicant. We may refer to interim order of the High Court dated 29.8.2006, which reads as follows:
WP(C) No.13640/06Issue notice to the respondents to show cause as to why rule nisi be not issued, returnable on 22nd November, 2006. Mr. S.P. Sharma accepts notice on behalf of the Respondent No.1/UOI. Let counter affidavit be filed within four weeks. Rejoinder within four weeks, thereafter.
CM No.10535/06 (exemption) Exemption allowed. CM stands disposed of.
CM 10534/06 (stay) Issue notice to the respondents, returnable on 22nd November, 2006. Mr. S. P. Sharma accepts notice on behalf of respondent no.1. Mr. Sandeep Sethi, Senior Advocate appearing for the petitioner submits that although the penalty imposed is stoppage of three increments, petitioners apprehension is that on account of the said penalty, the respondents are not even considering the petitioner for promotion. Learned counsel for the respondent to seek instructions on the above submission of the counsel for the petitioner. When the matter came up for hearing before the High Court on 4.12.2006, the following order came to be passed:
Petitioner had moved a similar application which has been posted for 4th January, 2007. Mr. Bhasin with great vehemence argues that petitioners juniors are getting promotions which he finds humiliating and denigrating. He further urges that respondents themselves after imposition of penalty promoted the petitioner as per page 471 of the paper book i.e. 23rd December, 2005 when petitioner was asked to intimate the choice of posting consequent upon his promotion to the cadre of Chief Commissioner of Income Tax. This order dated 23rd December, 2005 was subsequent to the imposition of penalty but has not been given effect to. Notice for 4th January, 2007, the date already fixed.
Ms. Jyoti Singh accepts notice on behalf of respondent No.2, UPSC. Notice shall now be issued to respondent nos. 1 and 3 through counsel as well. Petitioner to ensure that respondents 1 and 3 are served well in advance. Any promotion or orders made by the respondents during this interregnum period, would be subject to the disposal of the writ petition and such further orders as may be given at the time of disposal of this application on 4th January, 2007. On the adjourned date, i.e., 4.1.2007, when the matter came up for hearing before the High Court, the following order came to be recorded:
Mr. Ankur Chhibber states that they would no longer be representing UPSC as UPSC is represented by Mr. Ashwani Bhardwaj in this case. Learned counsel for the respondents Mr. Ashwani Bhardwaj submits that a penalty was imposed on the petitioner on 7.10.2004 which has the effect of reduction by three stages in the time scale of pay for a period of three years, which expires on 7.10.2007.
Accordingly, he submits that the petitioner during this period was not eligible for any promotion. He places reliance on State of T.N. Vs. Thiru K. S. Murugesan and Ors. reported at (1995) 3 SCC 273. He submits that the letter relied on by the petitioners appearing at page 471 was a conditional one, i.e. where the petitioners choice of posting was sought to be ascertained in the event of promotion taking place but in fact, no promotion could take place.
Let the respondents produce the record of the DPC in particular, to show whether the petitioner had been considered for promotion or not.
Renotify on 28th February, 2007.
Interim orders to continue. We may refer to another order dated 26.2.2008 passed by the High Court, which reads as follows:
By this application, petitioner wants to place on record subsequent events and the representations made by him and other documents annexed as AnnexuresP-1 to P-5 with the application.
Learned counsel for the respondent submits that the basic challenge in this writ petition is to the order passed by the Tribunal upholding the penalty. The subsequent events by which the petitioner wishes to enlarge the scope by bringing in his prayer for being considered for treatment to higher posts cannot be made a subject matter of the writ petition inasmuch as the petitioner has to first approach the Tribunal for this. This aspect shall be considered at the time of final hearing of the petition.
Renotify on 5th March, 2008, the date already fixed.
3. It appears that inasmuch as, the applicant could not seek relief of his promotion based upon the order giving option to him for posting on the promotional post in his pending writ petition, the present Application for reliefs as indicated above, came to be filed. It is the case of the applicant that at the time of passing of the order dated 7.10.2004 inflicting punishment upon him, as mentioned above, he had been legitimately expecting his promotion to the post of CCIT, for which his name was being considered, but was placed in sealed cover in the light of the disciplinary proceedings.
4. During the pendency of the present Application, the applicant has filed MA No.1340/2008 wherein it has been pleaded that the applicant was due for promotion being the seniormost and eligible officer in the zone of consideration for promotion to the post of CCIT in the year 2005, and in fact the DPC had in its meeting held on 25.11.2005 considered the applicant, found fit and selected him having been placed at serial No.1 on the panel for promotion to the post of CCIT. Consequently, the respondents vide communication dated 23.12.2005 sought three choices of posting from the applicant which has also been communicated by the applicant in terms of his letter dated 26.12.2005. It is then pleaded that the respondents keeping all the provisions of law at stake and acting in a predetermined and prejudicial manner, did not grant him due posting as CCIT despite promoting him to the said post.
5. On the facts as mentioned above, it is so pleaded and argued that once, despite orders of punishment the applicant was considered for promotion by the DPC and actually recommended for promotion at No.1 on 25.11.2005, and when the applicant was even given option for the place of his posting, there was no question for the respondents not to have promoted him. It is urged that the rules permit consideration of promotion of an officer who may have been inflicted with an order of punishment even though, it may be permissible for the authorities to actually promote him after the punishment period expires. It is then urged that penalty imposed vide order dated 7.10.2004 impugned in the writ petition expired/lapsed on 6.10.2007 and the applicant became eligible for promotion to the post of CCIT de hors pendency of the writ petition, and that being so, the applicant ought to have been considered for promotion in the years 2007 and 2008, which has not been done.
6. Pursuant to notice issued by this Tribunal, the respondents have entered appearance and by filing their reply contested the cause of the applicant. It has inter alia been pleaded in the counter reply that as a result of charge memo under rule 14 of the Rules of 1965, a penalty of reduction by three stages in the time scale of pay for a period of three years was imposed on the applicant vide order dated 7.10.2004 with further stipulation that he would not earn increment during the period of such reduction. On 25.11.2005, the DPC was held against the supplementary vacancies for the years 2004-2005 and vacancies for the year 2005-2006. The applicant was first considered by the DPC held on 25.11.2005 against the supplementary vacancies for the year 2004-2005 and he was assessed as fit. His name for inclusion in the panel for promotion was, however, not approved by the Appointments Committee of the Cabinet (ACC). Since the applicant had already been assessed fit for the vacancy year 2004-2005 (supplementary), he was not assessed for the vacancy year 2005-2006 by the DPC held on 25.11.2005. On 29.9.2006, when the DPC was held for the vacancy year 2006-2007, recommendations in the case of the applicant were kept in sealed cover since there was no vigilance clearance given in his case. DPC was held in the August, 2007 for the vacancy year 2007-2008, but the applicant was assessed as unfit by the DPC, and the recommendations of the DPC were accepted by the competent authority, i.e., ACC. In short, the defence projected by the respondents is that even though, the applicant might have been found fit by the DPC that was held on 25.11.2005 against the supplementary vacancies of 2004-2005, the ACC had not approved the same, and, therefore, he could not be promoted at that time nor even after the punishment period expired. There is absolutely no reason given as to why in the DPC held on 29.9.2006 for the vacancy year 2006-2007 the case of the applicant was kept in sealed cover. No doubt, it is mentioned that there was no vigilance clearance given in his case, but it is stated during the course of arguments that the same was not given only because of the punishment inflicted upon the applicant, mention whereof has been made above. Insofar as, however, the DPC that was held in August, 2007 for the vacancy year 2007-2008 is concerned, it is the case of the respondents that the DPC had considered the case of the applicant, but found him unfit.
7. We have heard the learned counsel representing the parties and with their assistance examined the records of the case.
8. Shri D. C. Pandey, learned counsel representing the applicant, contends that the mere fact that an employee has been inflicted punishment would be no ground so as not to consider him for the vacancy that may occur after the punishment is inflicted, and that he has to be considered and if found fit, promotion has to be given to him, even though the same may be kept in abeyance awaiting the period of punishment to expire. He further contends that once, the applicant was found fit by the DPC that was held on 25.11.2005, he had to be promoted and, at the most, his actual promotion could await expiry of the punishment period. It is also urged that the ACC may still not approve the recommendations made by the DPC, but it has to record reasons for doing so, and in the present case, the only reason for which the recommendations of the DPC were not approved by the ACC, is the same punishment order which had been inflicted upon the applicant on 7.10.2004. The counsel also contends that there was no earthly reason for the respondents not to consider promotion of the applicant in the DPC that was held on 25.11.2005 for the vacancy year 2005-2006, simply for the reason, as mentioned in the written statement, that there was no need to consider the case of the applicant for the vacancies of the year 2005-2006 as he had already been found fit for the supplementary vacancies of the year 2004-2005, and that the respondents despite the fact that the applicant had since already been punished far before the DPC met, could not keep his case in sealed cover, and on that account only refuse vigilance clearance in his case. Insofar as, the applicant having been found unfit by the DPC that was held in August, 2007 for the vacancy year 2007-2008 is concerned, the counsel has placed no material whatsoever on the basis of which it could be said that the DPC had wrongly found the applicant unfit. When confronted with the position aforesaid, the counsel contends that the present Application primarily is with regard to the cause of action that accrued to the applicant on the basis of recommendations made by the DPC finding him fit against the supplementary vacancies for the year 2004-2005 when it met on 25.11.2005, and his having been found unfit by the DPC for the vacancies of the year 2007-2008 may be challenged if need might arise.
9. From the narration of the facts given in the pleadings of the parties, the pertinent facts that emerge are as follows:
(i) The applicant was inflicted punishment of reduction by three stages in the time scale of pay for a period of three years with the stipulation that he would not earn increments of pay during the period of such reduction, vide order dated 7.10.2004.
(ii) The applicant was indeed considered for promotion to the post of CCIT by the DPC that was held on 25.11.2005 and he was found fit against the supplementary vacancies of the year 2004-2005. He was first considered by the DPC held on 25.11.2005 against the supplementary vacancies of the year 2004-2005 and, as mentioned above, was assessed as fit, but his name for inclusion in the panel for promotion was not approved by the ACC, which clearly emerges from the records that were summoned for our perusal. The reason why the ACC had not approved recommendation of the DPC for promotion of the applicant is that the penalty of reduction in the time scale of pay was imposed on him as recently as 7.10.2004. The note of the ACC bearing the date 31.12.2005 under signatures of Shri B. K. Chaturvedi, Cabinet Secretary, insofar as the case of the applicant is concerned, records as follows:
3. The officer at Sl No.01 of the panel for the year 2004-05, Shri Arindam Lahiri does not appear to be suitable for promotion as a penalty of reduction of pay was imposed on the officer as recently as 7th October, 2004.
(iii) Inasmuch as, the applicant was found fit for promotion to the post of CCIT for the supplementary vacancies of the year 2004-2005, his name for promotion for the vacancies of the year 2005-2006 was not even considered by the DPC.
(iv) In the DPC that was held on 29.9.2006, the case of the applicant was kept in sealed cover on the ground that there was no vigilance clearance given in his case, and the same, during the course of arguments, was admittedly for the reason that the applicant was inflicted punishment vide order dated 7.10.2004.
(v) The DPC that was held in August, 2007 for the vacancies of 2007-2008, found the applicant unfit for promotion.
10. The learned counsel representing the applicant in support of his contention that despite an order inflicting punishment upon an employee, his case for promotion has to be considered by the DPC that may meet after infliction of the punishment, and that if on such consideration he is found to be fit, he has to be promoted even though, his promotion may be kept in abeyance till expiry of the period of punishment, has relied upon Government instructions contained in C&AG of India, circular No.NGE/38/1990(497-N.2/39-90), dated 30th August, 1990, reproduced in Swamys Compilation of Seniority and Promotion, incorporating the orders revised up to February, 2004. Para 12.2 of the instructions aforesaid, which is relevant, reads as follows:
12.2 An officer whose increments have been withheld or who has been reduced to a lower stage in the time-scale, cannot be considered on that account to be ineligible for promotion as the specific penalty of withholding promotion has not been imposed on him. The suitability of the officer for promotion should be assessed by the Committee as and when occasion arises. They will take into account the circumstances leading to the imposition of the penalty and decide whether in the light of overall service records of the officer and the fact of the imposition of the penalty, he should be considered for promotion or not. Even where the Committee considers that despite the penalty the officer is suitable for promotion, the officer may be promoted only after the currency of the penalty.
11. When the matter came up for hearing before us on 25.9.2008, and the instructions reproduced above were pressed into service for the desired relief, after making a mention of the instructions aforesaid, we required the Joint Secretary (Establishment) to file an affidavit confirming the continued operation of circular dated 30.8.1990. Relevant part of the order dated 25.9.2008 reads as follows:
2. Counsel for the respondents would, however, contend that the instructions aforesaid might have been superseded by later instructions. With a view to effectively resolve the controversy in issue we order that the Joint Secretary (Establishment) shall file an affidavit confirming the continued operation of Circular dated 30.08.1990 reproduced above. In case, a fresh Circular has been issued, mention of the same shall be made. List on 1.10.2008. Pursuant to directions as reproduced above, Shri C. B. Paliwal, Joint Secretary, Department of Personnel & Training, Government of India has filed an affidavit dated 10.10.2008. Paragraphs 2 and 3 of the said affidavit, which are relevant, read thus:
2. Para-13 of the Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC) guidelines issued vide OM No.22011/5/86-Estt.(D) dated 10.4.1989 provides that an officer whose increments have been withheld or who has been reduced to a lower stage in the time scale, cannot be considered on that account to be ineligible for promotion to the higher grade as the specific penalty of withholding promotion has not been imposed on him. The suitability of the officer for promotion should be assessed by the DPC as and when occasions arise for such assessment. In assessing the suitability, the DPC will take into account the circumstances leading to the imposition of the penalty and decide whether in the light of the general service record of the officer and the fact of the imposition of penalty he should be considered suitable for promotion. However, even where the DPC considers that despite the penalty the officer is suitable for promotion, the officer should not actually be promoted during the currency of the penalty. As regards any clarification issued by any Department in consultation with the Department of Personnel & Training (DOPT), the same are generally applicable to the officers/employees of that organization/Department. However, general principles can be extended to other Organizations/Departments.
3. Keeping in view the position brought out in para-2 at pre-page, the general principles given in the clarification of C&AG are applicable. However, it is added that the recommendations of the DPC are advisory in nature and should be duly approved by the Appointing Authority. The promotion would, therefore, be effective only after the approval/ acceptance by the Appointing authority. Perusal of the contents of the affidavit reproduced above would manifest clearly and unequivocally that an officer whose increments have been withheld or who has even been reduced to a lower stage in the time scale, has to be considered for promotion to the higher grade. Concededly, the order of punishment did not go to the extent of withholding promotion. In the affidavit aforesaid, thus there is a candid admission that an officer having been visited with the penalty as meted out to the applicant, has to be considered for promotion and if found fit, has to be promoted as well, even though, as argued by the learned counsel representing the applicant, he may not be actually promoted till such time the period of punishment expires. Shri R. V. Sinha, learned counsel representing the respondents, in face of the instructions clearly covering the situation in hand and admission of the respondents of continuity of the applicability thereof, taking cue from the last sentence of paragraph 3 of the affidavit reproduced above, would only contend that the recommendations of the DPC are advisory in nature and should be duly approved by the appointing authority. Elaborating on the issue, he contends that the ACC has complete discretion so as not to approve the recommendation made by the DPC, and such an action taken by the ACC cannot be questioned in a court of law. Before we may deal with the discordant view made by the learned counsel representing the respondents, we may only mention that the learned counsel for the applicant for the proposition of law, as mentioned above, has relied upon the judgment of the Honble Supreme Court in Union of India v B. Radhakrishna [(1997) 11 SCC 698]. Facts of the case aforesaid reveal that the concerned employee was a Junior Accountant in Postal Accounts Services of Government of India. By order dated 17.12.1985 passed in departmental proceedings initiated against him, he was visited with the penalty of withholding of increment for a period of two years. The said penalty was current up to 28.2.1988. In the meanwhile, DPC met for purpose of promotion to the post of Senior Accountant. On the basis of recommendations of DPC, he was promoted to the post of Senior Accountant vide order dated 11.11.1987 w.e.f. 1.4.1987. Subsequently, by order dated 23.5.1994, the said order was modified and his promotion was made effective from 1.3.1988, i.e., from the date on which the penalty of withholding of increment ceased to operate. This is the order that was challenged by the employee before the Tribunal at Bangalore Bench. The OA filed by him was allowed by the Tribunal holding that he was promoted to the functional post in November, 1987 with effect from 1.4.1987 and that since he had discharged the said function, it would be unjust and arbitrary to reopen the matter at that distance of time and revise the date of promotion. The Tribunal directed that the date of promotion be maintained as 1.4.1987. The review petition filed against the order aforesaid was dismissed by the Tribunal, thus constraining the appellant Union of India to file an appeal before the Honble Supreme Court. The order passed by the Tribunal was set aside and the impugned order in the OA was restored. It may be recalled that vide the impugned order, promotion of the employee was made effective from the date when the period of punishment was to expire. The judgment supports the case of the applicant, even though indirectly inasmuch as, the right of an employee for consideration for promotion despite orders of punishment inflicted pursuant to a departmental enquiry was not in dispute. There was no dispute as well that if considered fit, the employee has to be promoted. The only question that came to be debated was the date of actual promotion. Would it be when the employee was found fit and recommended for promotion, or would it be after the period of punishment, was the only question debated and determined. The judgment of the Honble Supreme Court may indirectly support the case of the applicant for the reason that parties to litigation proceeded on a common platform insofar as, the right of an employee for consideration for promotion is concerned. We need not, however, delve any further in the matter, as once the applicability of the instructions referred to above is not in dispute and the said instructions clearly cover the controversy in issue, there would be no need to go any further.
12. Time is now ripe to take into consideration the contention of Shri Sinha, learned counsel representing the respondents, that despite recommendations of the DPC and the applicant having been found fit for promotion to the post of CCIT, be could still be denied promotion by the ACC disapproving his promotion. In his endeavour to bring home the point as referred to above, the learned counsel has relied upon the decision of the Honble Supreme Court in Union of India v N. P. Dhamania & Others [1995 Supp (1) SCC 1]. It was held by the Honble Supreme Court that the ACC can differ with the recommendations of DPC convened by UPSC as the recommendations of DPC are advisory in nature and are not binding on the appointing authority. The learned counsel has, however, missed to read the following observations made by the Honble Supreme Court in paragraph 14:
14. In the instant case, the ACC chose to differ without assigning any reason. In fact, the counsel for the Union of India was unable to produce any material to show that the reasons had been assigned for differing from the DPC. Therefore, the name of the respondent cannot be arbitrarily dropped. It was this arbitrariness which weighed with the Tribunal. On that basis, it rightly concluded that it would be a futile exercise to direct the respondent to make a reference back and have further consultation with the UPSC in the matter. It was under those circumstances, deemed promotion was ordered. To this, no exception could be taken. Learned counsel representing the respondents may be right in contending that the recommendations of the DPC are advisory in nature and not binding on the appointing authority, but if the same may contain no reasons, as observed by the Honble Supreme Court, and as further in our view, the reasons may be factually incorrect, non est or wholly illegal, such disapproval shall have to be ignored. In our considered view, non-recording of reasons or recording of wholly illegal reasons would stand at par, and would have the same effect. It may be recalled that the only ground disapproving the recommendations made by the DPC by the ACC is that the applicant had since been recently visited with the penalty, as mentioned above. That, admittedly is no ground so as not to consider the employee for promotion, even though, as mentioned above, the promotion would take effect from the date when the punishment period is over.
13. On the basis of instructions reproduced above, it appears to us that the applicant has a cast iron case and thus deserves to be promoted after expiry of the period of three years from the date of punishment, in consequence of the recommendations made by the DPC in its meeting held on 25.11.2005. We thus direct the respondents to consider promotion of the applicant from 27.12.2007 and promote him if there be nothing against him that may, despite our observations made above, under rules, not entitle him for promotion. There would be no need for us to delve upon other contentions raised by the learned counsel representing the applicant in view of the fact that he gets relief on the first point raised by him. We may, however, hasten to add that as per instructions referred to above, the applicant had to be considered in all subsequent DPCs, and, therefore, his non-consideration for the vacancies of the year 2005-2006 on the ground that he had already been assessed fit for the vacancy year 2004-2005 (supplementary) may not be correct. The recommendations of the DPC held on 29.9.2006 for the vacancy year 2006-2007 in respect of the applicant were kept in sealed cover for the simple reason that there was no vigilance clearance in his case, which was admittedly on account of the punishment inflicted upon him vide order dated 7.10.2004, which again does not appear to be a valid reason. Once again, the reason that the applicant was punished vide order dated 7.10.2004 and was, therefore, not suitable for promotion, was also not correct. Insofar as the assessment of the applicant as unfit by the DPC held in August, 2007 for the vacancy year 2007-2008 is concerned, we need not make any comment, in view of the submission made by the learned counsel that he would not press the relief based upon the ground that the applicant was found unfit for the vacancy year 2007-2008 at this stage.
14. In view of the discussion made above, this Application is allowed in the manner fully indicated above. Let the needful as ordained above be done within three months from the receipt of certified copy of this order. The applicant shall also be entitled to consequential reliefs that may accrue to him under rules. In the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, the costs of the litigation are made easy.
( L. K. Joshi ) ( V. K. Bali ) Vice-Chairman (A) Chairman /as/