Madhya Pradesh High Court
Ghanshyam Das Suryavanshi vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh Judgement ... on 26 November, 2013
1
W. P. No. 3485/07 (s)
26/11/13
Shri Mukesh Agrawal, learned counsel for the
petitioner.
Shri Rahul Jain, learned Dy. Adv. General for
respondent nos. 1 and 2.
Shri Amit Seth, learned counsel for respondent no. 3.
None appears for respondent no. 4.
Challenging the action of the respondents in denying
promotion to the petitioner and ignoring his claim for
promotion in comparison to respondent no. 4 who is junior
to the petitioner, this writ petition has been filed.
Matter pertains to consideration of the case of the
petitioner for promotion to the post of Revenue Sub-
Inspector.
Facts are not in dispute and it is an admitted position
that petitioner was appointed as a Moharrir in Municipal Council Khirkiya in the year 1983. He was thereafter transferred and absorbed and at the relevant time when this writ petition was filed, he was working as an Assistant Revenue Inspector in Nagar Panchayat Khirkiya under the control of Chief Municipal Officer, Distt. Harda.
It is also an admitted position that from the post of Assistant Revenue Inspector, promotion is made to the post of Revenue Sub Inspector. In the cadre of Assistant Revenue Inspector, respondent no. 4 is junior to the petitioner. However, vide order dated 22/07/06 Annexure P-9, respondent no. 4 has been promoted to the post of Revenue Sub Inspector and petitioner claims promotion at par with that of respondent no. 4 to the said post as the 2 claim for promotion of all the eligible candidates were considered by the D. P. C. which conducted its deliberation on 24/06/06 and in pursuance to the recommendations made by the D. P. C. on 24/06/06, the promotion in question was ordered.
As far as the case of the petitioner is concerned, it is seen that when the District Selection Committee held its meeting on 24/06/06, claim of the petitioner was not considered on the ground of certain departmental proceedings pending against him, and, therefore, he has not been recommended for promotion However, the fact remains that as on 24/06/06, no departmental proceedings are initiated against the petitioner or was pending, infact, a charge-sheet for initiating proceedings against the petitioner was issued much after the Departmental Promotion Committee met on 24/06/06. Though the charge-sheet was issued on 23/12/06 i.e. more than 6 months after the departmental promotion proceedings were initiated. Infact, on 24/06/06, when the Departmental Committee conducted its meeting, the departmental enquiry against the petitioner was not pending but only a show-cause notice was issued to the petitioner.
Respondents have denied promotion to the petitioner only on the ground that as certain departmental proceedings were pending, he cannot be promoted.
Even though, Shri Amit Seth, learned counsel tried to emphasize that as the departmental enquiry was pending, therefore, petitioner was not entitled for promotion, I am of the considered view that this contention cannot be 3 accepted. The law with regard to withholding of promotion in case, when departmental proceedings and criminal case are pending has been decided by the Supreme Court in the catena of cases. Reference may be made to the law laid down in the case of Union of India Vs. K. V. Jankiraman, AIR 1991 SC 2010 and followed in various cases upto State of U. P. Vs. Mahesh Narain, (2013) 4 SCC 169 .
It has been held in all these cases that promotion can be withheld only if the departmental proceedings are pending or criminal case is instituted on the date when the departmental promotion committee conducts its deliberation.
The question as to what is the date for pendency of departmental proceedings is considered in all these cases and in the case of K. V. Jankiraman (supra) , it is held that pendency of the departmental proceedings is the date when the disciplinary authority actually issues a charge-sheet or takes a decision to issue a charge-sheet or intiate the proceeding.
That being so, the crucial question is as to whether the departmental proceedings were pending against the petitioner, when the departmental committee conducted its meeting on 24/06/06. No charge-sheet has been issued to the petitioner on that date nor any decision was taken to intiate the Departmental proceeding. The charge-sheet was issued to the petitioner 6 months thereafter in December, 2006.
Keeping in view the law laid down in the cases as referred to hereinabove, non-consideration of the petitioner's case as indicated in the return cannot be 4 sustained.
Accordingly, this petition is allowed. It is directed that a review D. P. C. be conducted and case of the petitioner be considered for promotion at par with that of respondent no. 4 who was granted promotion on 22/07/06 and if found eligible, promotion be granted to the petitioner along with all consequential benefits as has been granted to respondent no. 4.
The aforesaid exercise as indicated hereinabove be concluded within a period of three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.
With the aforesaid, the petition stands allowed and disposed of.
C. C. as per rules.
(RAJENDRA MENON) JUDGE Vy/-