Central Administrative Tribunal - Chandigarh
Raj Kapoor Vashisht vs Ut Of Chandigarh on 21 July, 2025
1 (OA No. 423/2018)
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
CHANDIGARH BENCH
Reserved on : 10.07.2025
Pronounced on: 21.07.2025
OA No. 060/423/2018
HON'BLE SH. RAMESH SINGH THAKUR MEMBER (J)
HON'BLE MRS. ANJALI BHAWRA, MEMBER (A)
Raj Kapoor Vashisht S/o Sh. Bhim Sain, age 49 years, presently
working as Junior Assistant, office of Deputy Commissioner-
cum-Controller, Civil Defence, presently posted at Govt.
Museum and Art Gallery, Sector 10, U.T. Chandigarh.
.... Applicant
(BY Advocate: Sh. Rohit Seth)
Versus
1. Chandigarh Administration, Chandigarh through its Home
Secretary-cum-Secretary, Civil Defence, Sector 9, Chandigarh.
2. Deputy Commissioner-cum-Controller, Civil Defence, Sector 17,
U.T. Chandigarh.
3. The Assistant Collector (Under Training), Union Territory, Office
of Deputy Commissioner, Sector 17, Chandigarh.
4. Dinesh Devgan, working as Senior Assistant, Office of Deputy
Commissioner, Sector 17, Chandigarh.
.................Respondents
(BY Advocate: Sh. Arvind Moudgil for respdts. No. 1
to 3
None for respdt. No. 4)
ORDER
Per: SH. RAMESH SINGH THAKUR MEMBER (J):
1. This Original Application has been filed under Section 19 of the A.T. Act, 1985 seeking the following relief(s):-
NEERU DOUGALL 2025.08.07 13:11:10+05'30' 2 (OA No. 423/2018) ―i) Quash Order dated 28.07.2016 (Annexure A-1) vide which five juniors to the applicant have been promoted as Sr. Assistant while over looking his claim for promotion as such in terms of directions issued by this Hon'ble Tribunal vide its judgment 09.12.2013 (Annexure A-6), which has attained finality, against post that became available on the promotion of one Sh. Deepak Kainth as Superintendent Grade -II vide order dated 31.05.2012 on which date the applicant was neither under suspension nor any departmental / criminal proceedings were initiated against him and as applicant was exonerated from the only charges leveled against him in year 2013 vide order by Appellate Authority dated 23.02.2016 (Annexure A-9).
ii) Quash report dated 01.11.2017 as supplied to applicant along-with covering letter dated 23.03.2018 (Annexure A-2), relating to enquiry marked by the Home Secretary U.T. Chandigarh vide Memo No.9486-Hiii (3)-
2017/23791 dated 04.10.2017 to Assistant Collector (Under training), into the allegations leveled by applicant as also the grievance raised by him, to the extent it says that since the applicant has poor ACR rating for year 2014-15 he cannot be promoted from 01.06.2012 as such action of respondents is arbitrary. discriminatory, whimsical, illogical, against the settled law to the effect that service record of an employee has to be considered only for the years upto the date his eligibility for promotion and subsequent events cannot be considered.
iii) For issuance of directions to the respondents to consider and promote the applicant as Senior Assistant w.e.f 01.06.2012 by quashing the promotion of respondent No.4 with all consequential benefits of pay and allowances, seniority etc. interest on arrears @ 12% from date the amount became due till its realization.‖
2. The facts as have been enumerated in the Original Application are that the applicant joined service with the respondents as a Clerk on 27.02.1998 in the pay scale of Rs. 3120-5160, pursuant to appointment order dated NEERU DOUGALL 2025.08.07 13:11:10+05'30' 3 (OA No. 423/2018) 26.02.1998. The cadre of Clerks in UT Chandigarh is bifurcated into two grades--50% Clerks and 50% Junior Assistants. By virtue of seniority and availability of a vacancy, the applicant was placed in the pay scale of Rs. 4400-7000 w.e.f. 20.03.2007, as per order dated 13.02.2008 (Annexure A-3).
3. It is further submitted that promotion from the post of Clerk to Senior Assistant is governed by the Chandigarh Administration, Deputy Commissioner's Office (Group-C Non-Gazetted Ministerial Posts) Rules, 2001 (Annexure A-
4), which prescribe 100% promotion failing which by deputation, from among Clerks/Junior Assistants/Steno/Typists/Junior Scale Stenographers having five years of regular service. The applicant, having rendered more than 15 years of regular service, was thus eligible for promotion. A vacancy for the post of Senior Assistant arose on 31.05.2012 due to promotion of one Sh. Deepak Kainth as Superintendent Grade-II, making the applicant eligible for promotion from 01.06.2012. Despite being senior-most, the applicant apprehended that the respondents intended to promote a reserved category candidate in violation of the settled legal position. NEERU DOUGALL 2025.08.07 13:11:10+05'30' 4 (OA No. 423/2018)
4. Aggrieved, the applicant approached the Hon'ble Tribunal by filing O.A No. 1422/CH/2012, which was allowed vide order dated 09.12.2013 (Annexure A-6), directing the respondents to consider the applicant's claim for promotion from the due date with all consequential benefits. The applicant had relied on instructions dated 10.04.1989 and 04.05.2005 (Annexure A-7 colly), which mandate convening of the DPC at least two months before the occurrence of a vacancy.
5. However, during the pendency of the O.A., the applicant was issued a charge sheet on 17.05.2013, due to which the Tribunal's order dated 09.12.2013 was not complied with, despite a written request made by the applicant on 16.01.2014 (Annexure A-8). The disciplinary proceedings eventually concluded with the applicant's exoneration on 23.02.2016 (Annexure A-9), as per order of the Appellate Authority.
6. Subsequently, DPC proceedings were convened on 27.07.2016 to consider candidates for promotion as Senior Assistant based on the seniority list as on 01.05.2012 (Annexure A-10), but the applicant's case was not considered from 01.06.2012, in contravention of the NEERU DOUGALL 2025.08.07 13:11:10+05'30' 5 (OA No. 423/2018) Tribunal's earlier order. On 28.07.2016 (Annexure A-1), promotion orders were issued in favour of five juniors to the applicant, subject to the outcome of pending appeals. The appeal referred to was unrelated to disciplinary proceedings, and instead pertained to an order dated 31.03.2014, whereby a day's salary was deducted and a warning issued without following due process. The applicant had already filed an appeal against this on 15.06.2015.
7. The applicant submitted representations on 15/16.11.2016 and 01.05.2017, requesting promotion w.e.f. 01.06.2012 (Annexure A-11 colly). In response, a review DPC was convened on 03.08.2017, but the earlier decision was maintained. Subsequently, the matter was referred for enquiry by the Home Secretary, U.T. Chandigarh, to the Assistant Collector through Memo dated 04.10.2017. Although the Assistant Collector's report dated 01.11.2017 acknowledged most of the applicant's points, he denied the applicant's claim citing poor ACR for the year 2014-15. This report was supplied to the applicant under RTI along with a covering letter dated 23.03.2018 (Annexure A-2). NEERU DOUGALL 2025.08.07 13:11:10+05'30' 6 (OA No. 423/2018)
8. The applicant contends that denial of promotion on the basis of ACRs post the eligibility date (i.e., 01.06.2012) is arbitrary, discriminatory, and contrary to settled law. It is emphasized that at the time of occurrence of vacancy, the applicant was neither under suspension nor facing any departmental/criminal proceedings, and had since been exonerated in the only pending matter. Thus, this Original Application has been filed to seek compliance with the Tribunal's order dated 09.12.2013 and grant of promotion w.e.f. 01.06.2012.
9. Respondents have contested the claim of the applicant by filing a written statement. The respondents, in their written statement, have alleged that the applicant has misrepresented facts and suppressed material information while filing the present Original Application (OA), thereby approaching the Tribunal with ―unclean hands.‖ On this ground alone, they contend, the OA is liable to be dismissed. They submit that the applicant initially joined the respondent department as a Clerk on 27.02.1998 and was later promoted as a Junior Assistant on 20.03.2007 against the vacancy created by the promotion of Sh. Rajiv Kumar.
NEERU DOUGALL 2025.08.07 13:11:10+05'30' 7 (OA No. 423/2018)
10. A promotional vacancy for the post of Senior Assistant arose following the promotion of Sh. Deepak Kainth to Superintendent Grade-II on 31.05.2012. Before convening the Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC), the department sought advice from the Director, Social Welfare, Chandigarh Administration, regarding reservation applicability. Vide letter dated 12.11.2012, it was clarified that the relevant roster point was reserved for a Scheduled Caste (SC) candidate.
11. Upon learning of the reserved status of the post, the applicant filed OA No. 1422/CH/2012 before the Tribunal, which was decided on 09.12.2013. However, when the applicant approached the office with the certified copy of the order on 16.01.2014, it was found that he had already been chargesheeted on 17.05.2013 for a missing file, which hindered compliance with the Tribunal's order. This situation was communicated to the Tribunal through letter dated 12.01.2014 (Annexure R-1). The applicant was subsequently exonerated in the disciplinary proceedings by the Appellate Authority on 23.02.2016.
12. In the DPC meeting held on 27.07.2016, the applicant's name, along with others, was considered for promotion. As NEERU DOUGALL 2025.08.07 13:11:10+05'30' 8 (OA No. 423/2018) per DPC guidelines, employees must have ACRs not below ―Average‖ and no pending criminal or departmental proceedings. The applicant, along with Sh. Vijay Kumar (Junior Assistant) and Sh. Gurmukh Singh (Clerk), was not promoted--Gurmukh Singh due to pending criminal proceedings and the applicant and Vijay Kumar due to ―Below Average‖ ACRs. Accordingly, five other candidates from the seniority list were promoted, while promotions of the three mentioned were withheld based on DPC criteria.
13. The applicant later submitted a representation to the Home Secretary, alleging wrongdoing and suppression of facts by the officials of the Establishment Branch. Acting on this, the Home Secretary ordered a review of the DPC on 04.07.2017. The review confirmed that the applicant's ACRs for 2013-14 and 2014-15 were ―Average/Below Average,‖ thus failing to meet the benchmark of ―Good‖ required for promotion, as per the guidelines of the Department of Personnel, Chandigarh Administration. A similar conclusion was reached regarding the ACRs of Sh. Vijay Kumar.
14. The applicant again filed a complaint on 22.09.2017, alleging concealment and irregularities in the DPC process. NEERU DOUGALL 2025.08.07 13:11:10+05'30' 9 (OA No. 423/2018) In response, an inquiry was conducted by the Assistant Commissioner, Sh. Kishore Kshirsagar Lakshman, IAS (P), as directed by the Deputy Commissioner. The inquiry report was forwarded to the Home Secretary and the Vigilance Department for appropriate action. The respondents assert that the findings of the inquiry and review uphold the legitimacy of the decisions taken in the DPC and maintain that the impugned order is legally sustainable.
15. The applicant has filed the rejoinder to the written statement reiterating the facts as stated in the Original Application. The applicant has firmly denied the allegations in the respondents' written statement, asserting that there has been no misrepresentation or suppression of facts on their part. Instead, the applicant has approached the Tribunal seeking justice due to the alleged harassment and arbitrary actions by Respondents No. 1 to 3. It is contended that reservation in promotions could not have been claimed at the relevant time due to the prevailing legal position laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and High Court, and that the office of Respondent No. 2 was duty-bound to convene the DPC for the post of Senior Assistant before the vacancy arose upon the promotion of NEERU DOUGALL 2025.08.07 13:11:10+05'30' 10 (OA No. 423/2018) Sh. Deepak Kainth. The applicant maintains that no reservation roster point applied in that case, and post- exoneration from departmental proceedings in December 2013, his promotion ought to have been considered from June 1, 2012. However, the DPC meeting held on June 6, 2012, omitted the post vacated by Sh. Kainth from its agenda, allegedly to deliberately exclude the applicant. The applicant was eligible and senior, whereas others promoted had eligibility issues, as recorded in the DPC proceedings.
16. The rejoinder highlights that the case of another employee, Sh. Gurmukh Singh, who was facing criminal proceedings, is unrelated and being wrongly cited. The applicant was exonerated in 2016 and his promotion should have been assessed based on his record up to 2012, not later performance. The applicant had submitted a complaint on November 16, 2016, alleging manipulation in the DPC by certain officials--namely Smt. Geeta, Sh. Mahavir Singh, and Sh. Mohan Singh--who concealed material facts to secure an undue promotion for Sh. Mahavir Singh. The said officials allegedly processed their own cases while suppressing an appeal pending against Sh. Mahavir Singh's service regularization. The complaint NEERU DOUGALL 2025.08.07 13:11:10+05'30' 11 (OA No. 423/2018) was shared with the DPC members, but no corrective action has been taken so far.
17. Further, although the Home Secretary had ordered a review of the DPC meeting of July 27, 2016, the agenda submitted for the review was again misleading, falsely suggesting that the applicant's appeal was still pending when it had been resolved in February 2016. Consequently, the DPC review meeting held in July 2017 also failed to consider the applicant's rightful claim from June 1, 2012. The applicant later submitted a fresh complaint on September 22, 2017, but no accountability was fixed on the officials responsible for misleading the DPC. An inquiry conducted by Sh. Kishore Kshirsagar Lakshman, IAS, acknowledged the applicant's grievances but denied him promotion from 2012 on the grounds of a poor ACR for 2014-15, which the applicant claims is irrelevant to his eligibility as of the due date. Despite this, no action has been taken against the involved officials, and instead, the promotion of one of them, Sh. Mohan Singh, was processed for further advancement to Superintendent Grade-II.
NEERU DOUGALL 2025.08.07 13:11:10+05'30' 12 (OA No. 423/2018)
18. We have heard the learned counsels for the parties and have carefully gone through the pleadings on record.
19. The applicant has challenged the denial of promotion on multiple legal grounds. Firstly, he submits that the consideration of Annual Confidential Reports (ACRs) beyond the date of eligibility is impermissible. The ACRs for the years 2013-14 and 2014-15 were not only recorded after an inordinate delay of more than 400 days but were also conveyed to the applicant belatedly in 2016. One of the ACRs was unjustifiably downgraded and both were allegedly influenced by disciplinary proceedings in which the applicant was ultimately exonerated. In this context, the applicant relies on the judgment in CBDT vs. Dr. O.N. Tripathi, 1991(1) SCT 637, where the Supreme Court held that ACRs written belatedly or after the due date of promotion cannot be legally relied upon.
20. The applicant further contends that, as on the relevant date of consideration for promotion, he was neither under suspension nor facing any departmental inquiry, and therefore, denial of promotion is contrary to the settled law laid down in UOI vs. K.V. Jankiraman, 1991(3) SCT 317; UOI vs. Dr. (Smt.) Sudha Salhan, 1998(1) NEERU DOUGALL 2025.08.07 13:11:10+05'30' 13 (OA No. 423/2018) SCT 804; and Bank of India vs. Degala Suryanarayana, 1999(3) SCT 669, where it was held that promotion cannot be withheld in the absence of pending disciplinary proceedings or suspension.
21. The applicant also submits that his right to promotion had already crystallized through earlier judicial pronouncements, and such accrued rights cannot be taken away arbitrarily or bypassed by promoting juniors. This principle is supported by the decisions in Chairman Railway Board vs. C.R. Rangadhamalah, 1997(3) SCT 722 SC, and State of Gujarat vs. Raman Lal Keshav Lal Soni, 1983(2) SCC 33, where the courts held that final judgments confer conclusive rights that cannot be disturbed without due process.
22. Moreover, the applicant asserts that the impugned action of the respondents is arbitrary, lacking in fairness, and violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. In FCI vs. Kamdhenu Cattle Feed Industries, AIR 1993 SC 1601, it was emphasized that arbitrary administrative action cannot be sustained under constitutional scrutiny. The applicant also contends that the respondents cannot be permitted to take advantage of their own wrong, NEERU DOUGALL 2025.08.07 13:11:10+05'30' 14 (OA No. 423/2018) particularly the delayed communication and preparation of ACRs. This principle is supported by Shalini vs. Kurukshetra University, 2002(1) SCT 844 (SC), and Kusheshwar Prasad Singh vs. State of Bihar, (2007) 11 SCC 447.
23. In addition, the applicant invokes the doctrine of legitimate expectation, arguing that based on his past service, judicial findings, and settled law, he had a legitimate expectation of promotion. Support for this claim is drawn from UOI vs. Hemraj Singh Chauhan, 2010(2) SCT 421 SC; Syed Khalid Rizvi vs. UOI, 1993(3) SCT 236 SC; Satpura Narmada Kshetriya Gramin Bank vs. A.K. Chaturvedi, 2011 (MP HC); K.V. Siva Reddy vs. State of A.P., 1988(1) JT 415 SC; and K.R. Prasad vs. B. Rosaiah, 1988(1) JT 418 SC.
24. The applicant also relies on the doctrine of merger, submitting that earlier valid promotion orders merge into subsequent promotions and cannot be undone by belated adverse entries. For this, he places reliance on Narinder Singh Punia vs. UOI, OA No. 2206 of 2013, decided on 05.12.2014.
NEERU DOUGALL 2025.08.07 13:11:10+05'30' 15 (OA No. 423/2018)
25. In view of the detailed facts, legal submissions, and settled jurisprudence, it is evident that the applicant was eligible and entitled to be considered for promotion to the post of Senior Assistant w.e.f. 01.06.2012, as on that date, he was neither under suspension nor facing any departmental or criminal proceedings. The denial of promotion based on ACRs for the years 2013-14 and 2014-15 prepared after an inordinate delay and allegedly influenced by disciplinary proceedings in which the applicant was ultimately exonerated -- is legally impermissible. As held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in CBDT vs. Dr. O.N. Tripathi, 1991(1) SCT 637, ACRs written belatedly or post facto cannot be relied upon for denying promotion. Further, in UOI vs. K.V. Jankiraman, 1991(3) SCT 317, it was categorically held that unless disciplinary proceedings are pending or the employee is under suspension on the date of consideration, promotion cannot be withheld.
26. The applicant's right to promotion, having crystallized through the judgment of this Tribunal dated 09.12.2013, could not be nullified by subsequent arbitrary action or procedural manipulation. The principle laid down in Chairman, Railway Board vs. C.R. Rangadhamanlah, NEERU DOUGALL 2025.08.07 13:11:10+05'30' 16 (OA No. 423/2018) 1997(3) SCT 722 (SC) and State of Gujarat vs. Raman Lal Keshav Lal Soni, 1983(2) SCC 33 affirms that final judicial orders confer accrued rights which cannot be undone arbitrarily. Moreover, the act of denying promotion by relying on belated and allegedly biased ACRs amounts to arbitrariness, attracting the protection of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution, as emphasized in FCI vs. Kamdhenu Cattle Feed Industries, AIR 1993 SC 1601.
27. Additionally, the applicant's claim is fortified by the doctrine of legitimate expectation, as recognized in UOI vs. Hemraj Singh Chauhan, 2010(2) SCT 421 (SC) and Syed Khalid Rizvi vs. UOI, 1993(3) SCT 236 (SC), where it was held that a government servant has a legitimate expectation to be considered for promotion in accordance with rules and law.
28. We also note that the vide MA No. 1834/2018, applicant has placed on record some documents which further strengthen his claim for the relief sought. These documents are as follows:-
(i) Annexure MA 1 is a letter dated 16.08.2018 vide which the Deputy Commissioner has replied with reference to letter dated 18.07.2018 (Annexure MA-14) that the case of NEERU DOUGALL 2025.08.07 13:11:10+05'30' 17 (OA No. 423/2018) applicant for promotion as Sr. Assistant w.e.f. 01.06.2012 will be decided after outcome of this OA filed by him.
(ii) Annexure MA 2 is an order dated 16.10.2018 passed by Home Secretary, UT Chandigarh endorsed to the applicant and Deputy Commissioner vide which the APAR of the applicant for the year 2013-14 has been upgraded to Very Good from Average, expunging the remarks of the Deputy Commissioner, Chandigarh.
(iii) Annexure MA 3 is an order dated 16.10.2018 passed by Home Secretary, UT Chandigarh endorsed to the applicant and Deputy Commissioner vide which the APAR of the applicant for the year 2014-15 has been upgraded to Very Good from Below Average, expunging the remarks of the Deputy Commissioner, Chandigarh.
(iv) Annexure MA 4 is the order dated 16.10.2018 vide which the Home Secretary, Chandigarh has set aside the order dated 31.03.2014 passed by Deputy Commissioner vide which the salary for one day of the applicant was deducted.
28. Therefore, in light of the above discussion, detailed authoritative judicial pronouncements and the orders issued by the respondents as detailed in previous paragraph of this order, the impugned action of the respondents is held unsustainable in law.
29. Accordingly, this Tribunal finds merit in the claim of the applicant. Thus, the present Original Application is disposed of with the directions to the respondents to consider the case of the applicant for promotion as Senior Assistant w.e.f. 01.06.2012 for the vacancy which arose on promotion of one Sh. Deepak Kainth as Superintendent Grade -II vide order dated 31.05.2012. Such exercise be NEERU DOUGALL 2025.08.07 13:11:10+05'30' 18 (OA No. 423/2018) carried out within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.
30. However, there shall be no order so as to costs.
(ANJALI BHAWRA) (RAMESH SINGH THAKUR)
Member (A) Member (J)
ND*
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No
Whether Reportable : Yes/No
NEERU DOUGALL 2025.08.07 13:11:10+05'30'