Madhya Pradesh High Court
Kushal Singh vs Revenue Department on 4 October, 2017
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
WP-45-2017
(KUSHAL SINGH Vs REVENUE DEPARTMENT)
04-10-2017
Shri Pramod Meetha, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Shri K. Pathak, learned G.A. for the respondent/State.
The petitioner before this Court who is working on the post of Tehsildar, has filed this present petition claiming the promotion to the post of Dy. Collector i.e. State Administrative Services (Junior Scale).
The contention of the petitioner is that in the Gradation List of the year 2014 issued in respect of Tehsildars, his name finds place at Serial No.161 and persons who are admittedly junior to him, who are at Serial No.162 to 169, have been promoted to the post of Dy. Collector and the recommendation of the Departmental Promotion Committee in respect of the petitioner has been kept in sealed cover.
Learned counsel Shri Pramod Meetha has drawn the attention of this Court towards a show-cause notice issued on 21.10.2014 by the competent disciplinary authority in exercise of powers conferred under Rule 3(1)(i)(ii)(iii) of the M.P. Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1965 and his contention is that after the petitioner has submitted a reply to the show-cause notice, the competent disciplinary authority being satisfied by the reply to the show-cause notice, has passed an order on 8.3.2016 closing the matter, meaning thereby exonerating the petitioner in respect of the allegations levelled in the show-cause notice. The order exonerating the petitioner dated 8.3.2016 is also on record. The petitioner's contention is that because a show-cause notice was in existence at the relevant point of time when the DPC took place and when the promotion order was issued in respect of juniors, recommendations in respect of the petitioner were kept in sealed cover and as now the petitioner has been given clean-chit by competent disciplinary authority, he is entitled for all consequential benefits.
The respondents have filed reply and the respondents have stated that they have kept the recommendation in respect of the petitioner in a sealed cover because a show-cause notice was issued on 21.10.2014 to the petitioner and as thereafter the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of State of M.P. and others Vs. R.B. Rai and others has granted an order of status quo, the question of opening the sealed cover does not arise. Apart from the aforesaid there is no other reply on behalf of the State of M.P. This Court has carefully gone through the reply filed by the State Government as well as the writ petition. Undisputedly the juniors to the petitioner have been promoted by order dated 22.3.2016. The DPC took place in the year 2015 and at the relevant point of time a show-cause notice dated 21.10.2014 issued under the M.P. Civil Services (Conduct) Rules was in existence, the petitioner did submit the reply to the show-cause notice issued by the competent disciplinary authority and in the meanwhile on account of the pending disciplinary proceedings the recommendations in respect of the petitioner were kept in sealed cover. The petitioner was given clean-chit by the competent disciplinary authority i.e. Commissioner, Indore Division, Indore and the order exonerating the petitioner dated 8.3.2016 is on record. The same has not been disputed by the State of M.P. and therefore, as a consequence the petitioner is certainly entitled for promotion from the same date on which his juniors have been promoted to the post of Dy. Collector in case he is found fit after opening of the sealed cover. The State Government has placed reliance upon the interim order passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of M.P. and others Vs. R.B. Rai and others (SLP No.13954/2016). The aforesaid case was a case relating to promotion and in respect of reservation provided by the State of M.P. in respect of various posts. The aforesaid case has got no nexus with the lis involved in the present case.
In the present case the petitioner was considered by the DPC and based upon the recommendation of the same DPC, as many as 38 Tehsildars have been posted as Dy. Collector. The order of status quo will not come in the way of the petitioner as in the case of the petitioner the issue of reservation is not involved at all. It is a case of opening of the sealed cover and, therefore, in the considered opinion of this Court the writ petition deserves to be allowed and is accordingly allowed.
The respondents are directed to open the sealed cover and to pass appropriate consequential order based upon the recommendation of the DPC, within a period of 30 days from today. The writ petition stands allowed with the following directions:-
a. The respondents shall open the sealed cover within a period of 30 days from today and shall also pass an appropriate consequential order based upon the recommendation within the aforesaid period.
b. The writ petitioner shall also be entitled for backwages, seniority and all other consequential benefits by treating him at par with his juniors, in case he is found fit by DPC for promotion.
c. Exercise of granting consequential benefits, in case promotion order is issued in respect of the petitioner, be concluded within a period of 90 days from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.
The petition accordingly stands disposed off. C.C. as per rules.
(S.C.SHARMA) JUDGE