Chattisgarh High Court
Manoj Kumar Bhagat vs The State Of Chhattisgarh on 20 March, 2026
Author: Parth Prateem Sahu
Bench: Parth Prateem Sahu
1/8
2026:CGHC:13693
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
WPS No. 13119 of 2025
• Manoj Kumar Bhagat S/o Late T.R. Bhagat Aged About 47 Years Present
Working As A Field Officer, Zila Antyavasai Sahakari Vikas Samiti Raigarh,
District Raigarh Chhattisgarh
... Petitioner
versus
1. The State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of Schedule
Tribe And Schedule Caste Development, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan,
Atal Nagar, Nawa Raipur Chhattisgarh
2. The Managing Director Rajya Antyavasai Sahakari Vitya Evam Vikas Nigam
Tribal Research Institute Bhawan, Second Floor, Sector-24, Atal Nagar,
Nawa Raipur Chhattisgarh
3. Babubhai Shrivas Chief Executive Officer, Office Of The Collector Zila
Antyavasai Sahakari Vikas Samiti Raigarh, District Raigarh Chhattisgarh
4. Laxmi Prasad Kashyap Chief Executive Officer, Office Of The Collector Zila
Antyavasai Sahakari Vikas Samiti Bilaspur, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh
5. Manharan Koshle Executive Officer, Office Of The Collector Zila Antyavasai
Sahakari Vikas Samiti Balodabazar, District Balodabazar-Bhatapara
Chhattisgarh
6. Smt. Seeta Srivas Executive Officer, Office Of The Collector Zila Antyavasai
Vyasahik Prashishank Kendra Kosa Jagdalpur, District Jagdalpur
Chhattisgarh
7. Rashmi Gupta Executive Officer, Office Of The Collector Zila Antyavasai
Sahakari Vikas Samiti Gariyaband, District Gariyaband Chhattisgarh
8. Smt. Nidhi Sinde Executive Officer, Office Of The Collector Zila Antyavasai
Sahakari Vikas Samiti Korba, District Korba Chhattisgarh
9. Naveen Kumar Sharma Executive Officer, Nigam Mukhyalaya Nawa Raipur,
District Raipur Chhattisgarh
10. Ghanshyam Prasad Bramhe Executive Officer, Office Of The Collector Zila
Antyavasai Sahakari Vikas Samiti Kondagaon, District Kondagaon
Chhattisgarh
11. Praveen Kumar Lata Executive Officer, Office Of The Collector Zila
Antyavasai Sahakari Vikas Samiti Bemetara, District Bemetara Chhattisgarh
12. Sandeep Shukla Executive Officer, Office Of The Collector Zila Antyavasai
Sahakari Vikas Samiti Janjgir, District Janjgir-Champa Chhattisgarh
2/8
13. Suresh Kumar Verma Executive Officer, Office Of The Collector Zila
Antyavasai Sahakari Vikas Samiti Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh
14. Alakram Belsariya Executive Officer, Office Of The Collector Zila Antyavasai
Sahakari Vikas Samiti Narayanpur, District Narayanpur Chhattisgarh
15. Yogesh Kumar Sahu Executive Officer, Office Of The Collector Zila
Antyavasai Sahakari Vikas Samiti Beejapur, District Beejapur Chhattisgarh
16. Jitendra Baghel Executive Officer, Office Of The Collector Zila Antyavasai
Sahakri Vikas Samiti Dantewara, District Dantewara Chhattisgarh
17. Bhartendu Dewangan Executive Officer, Office Of The Collector Zila
Antyavasai Sahakari Vikas Samiti Jagdalpur, District Jagdalpur Chhattisgarh
18. Prahlad Dewangan Executive Officer, Office Of The Collector Zila Antyavasai
Sahakari Vikas Samiti Balrampur, District Balrampur-Ramanujganj
Chhattisgarh
19. Smt. Prabha Markande Executive Officer, Office Of The Collector Zila
Antyavasai Sahakari Vikas Samiti Mahasamund, District Mahasamund
Chhattisgarh
20. Miss Hemlata Jangde Executive Officer, Office Of The Collector Zila
Antyavasai Sahakari Vikas Samiti Sakti, District Sakti Chhattisgarh
... Respondents
For Petitioner : Mr. Roop Ram Nayak, Advocate
For Respondent-State : Ms. Anuja Nigam, Dy. Govt. Advocate
For Respondent No. 2 : Mr. Ramnarayan Sahu, Advocate
For Respondent No. 3 & 4 : Ms. Soumya Das, Advocate
Hon'ble Shri Parth Prateem Sahu, Judge
ORDER ON BOARD
20/03/2026
1. Brief facts of the case are that meeting of Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC) was convened on 29.09.2018 to consider the suitability of the eligible Field Officers for their promotion to the post of Executive Officer. In the said meeting, DPC considered name of petitioner as he was falling within the zone of consideration, however, he was not recommended for promotion because Annual Confidential Report (ACR) of petitioner of the year 2016-17 was not available and his name was kept in circulation. In the meeting of review DPC held on 10.02.2021 with reference to the DPC dated 29.09.2018, petitioner was found suitable for promotion, however, he was not 3/8 promoted due to pendency of departmental enquiry, which made the petitioner to file this writ petition seeking following reliefs:
"10.1 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue an appropriate writ of mandamus/ direction / order to set aside Order dated 11.09.2025 passed by the respondent No. 2 (ANNEXURE P-1), DPC dated 29.09.2018 convened by the DPC Committee (ANNEXURE P-2), Order dated 06.10.2021 passed by the respondent No. 2 (ANNEXURE P-3), Order dated 25.04.2022 passed by the respondent No. 2 (ANNEXURE P-4), Order dated 02.06.2022 passed by the respondent No. 2 (ANNEXURE P-
5) and Order dated 01.10.2025 passed by the respondent No. 2 (ANNEXURE P-6).
10.2 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue an appropriate writ of mandamus/ direction / order to the respondents authority to grant / provide promotion to the petitioner on the post of Executive Engineer with effect from 29.09.2018 with seniority and all consequential service benefits.
10.3 That, any direction or order may kindly be passed in favour of the petitioner, which this Hon'ble Court deems fit in the facts and circumstances of the case. An affidavit in support of this petition is filed herewith."]
2. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that petitioner was having good service record till the date when the DPC convened meeting on 29.09.2018 for consideration of the name of eligible Field Officers for their promotion to the post of Executive Officer. Name of petitioner was though considered, however, he could not be recommended for promotion as the ACR of petitioner for the year 2016-17 was not available. Non-availability of ACR of petitioner of one year is due to administrative lapse on the part of respondents for which petitioner cannot be made to suffer. It is contention of learned counsel for petitioner that respondent-Department have convened review DPC on 10.02.2021 with reference to the DPC meeting dated 29.09.2018. Petitioner was found suitable but he was again not recommended for promotion mentioning that a departmental enquiry is 4/8 pending consideration against him. He would submit that the candidature of petitioner and his suitability is to be considered even if in review DPC as of during first meeting of DPC dated 29.09.2018, on the said date petitioner was not served with charge-memo nor any enquiry was pending against him and therefore respondents ought to have recommended for issuance of order of promotion when the candidature of petitioner is considered in review DPC meeting held on 10.02.2021 in reference of the first meeting of DPC dated 29.09.2018. Direction be issued to the respondent-Department to issue order of promotion in favour of petitioner with effect from the date when other Field Officers were promoted to the post of Executive Officer pursuant to meeting of DPC convened on 29.09.2018.
3. Learned counsel for respondent-State would submit that petitioner is an employee of Respondent no. 2 and the relief as prayed for in this writ petition is against Respondent No. 2 and not from the State Government, therefore, she is not making any submission on merits of the case.
4. Learned counsel for Respondent No. 2 would submit that in the meeting of DPC held on 29.09.2018 for promotion of Field Officers and the Chief Instructors to the post of Executive Officer, name of petitioner was also considered, however, he was not recommended for promotion because ACR of petitioner of the year 2016-17 was not made available, and his name was kept in circulation. Based on the recommendation made by the DPC, order of promotion was issued on 05.10.2018. In review DPC held on 10.02.2021 with reference to DPC meeting dated 29.09.2018, name of petitioner was again considered, however, he was again not recommended for promotion on the ground that departmental enquiry is instituted against him. It is contention of learned counsel for Respondent No. 2 that in the meeting of DPC dated 31.03.2022, name of petitioner for promotion was again considered and his name has been kept in circulation as the ACR of petitioner for the year 2019- 20 was not received and further a departmental enquiry is pending against 5/8 him. In the departmental enquiry proceedings, charges levelled against petitioner was found proved and he was inflicted with punishment of withholding annual increment with non-cumulative effect vide order dated 20.03.2025. In DPC convened on 23.09.2025, again petitioner was found eligible for promotion for the post of Executive Officer but as the petitioner was inflicted with punishment of withholding of increment vide order dated 20.03.2025, his name was not recommended for promotion.
5. I have heard learned counsel for the respective parties and also perused the documents placed on record.
6. When the case was listed for the first time on 20.11.2025, Court has directed Respondent No. 2 to place on record proceedings of DPC for perusal and also to call the Officer acquainted with proceedings of DPC. On 11.03.2026, Smt. Gayatri Netam, Secretary, Chhattisgarh Antyavasai Sahakari Vitta Evam Vikas Nigam appeared in person along with record of DPC and upon hearing her, based on the proceedings of DPC dated 29.09.2018 and 10.02.2021 following was recorded:
"Upon putting query to the Officer present in this Court, she submits that according to proceeding recorded in DPC held on 29.09.2018, name of petitioner was considered. However, due to unavailability of the ACR of petitioner, his name was kept in circulation. She submits that along with petitioner, names of other 8 employees were also kept in circulation for want of ACR of relevant period. Meeting of review DPC was convened on 10.02.2021 and upon perusal of ACR of petitioner, he was found suitable for promotion. However, on the same day i.e. 10.02.2021, it was informed to DPC that departmental enquiry is pending consideration against the petitioner and therefore he was not given promotion. Upon asking, she clarifies that even sealed cover procedure was not adopted. She, however, submits that on the date of convening meeting of DPC in the year 2018, no enquiry was pending against the petitioner and he was suitable for promotion."6/8
7. From the facts of the case, submission made by learned counsel for the respective parties as also the submission made by the Secretary, Chhattisgarh Antyavasai Sahakari Vitta Evam Vikas Nigam would show that petitioner became eligible for consideration of his name for promotion on the post of Executive Officer. In the meeting of DPC held on 29.09.2018 upon considering the candidature of petitioner he could not be promoted only because his ACR of the year 2016-17 was not made available to the DPC by the department. According to Respondent No.2, name of petitioner has been kept in circulation.
8. Perusal of proceeding of review DPC convened on 10.02.2021 of the DPC meeting dated 29.09.2018 would show that in review DPC petitioner was found suitable as on 29.09.2018 for promotion but he could not be recommended for promotion only because an departmental enquiry was initiated against him in the year 2019.
9. It is settled law that when name of employee is considered in review DPC which convened subsequently with reference to the meeting of DPC which was earlier held, then the suitability of the employee for his promotion is to be considered with reference to the date of first meeting of the DPC convened on earlier occasion. In the facts of the case, relevant date would be 29.09.2018 for assessing the suitability of petitioner for his promotion. It is not in dispute that the DPC has considered the ACR of prior period to the date of convening of meeting, upon consideration of ACR prior to 29.09.2018, the review DPC in its meeting dated 10.02.2021 had found petitioner suitable for promotion and therefore the DPC ought to have recommended name of petitioner for promotion without taking note of any adverse remark or pendency of enquiry which was subsequent to the first meeting of DPC held on 29.09.2018. On 21.02.2021, only the departmental enquiry proceeding was pending. Relevant portion of the proceedings 7/8 recorded by the DPC after convening of the meeting dated 10.02.2021 is extracted below for ready reference.
"दिनांक 10.02.2021 को आयोजित रिव्यू डी.पी.सी. में श्री मनोज कु मार भगत, क्षेत्राधिकारी जिला समिति रायगढ़ का नाम पदोन्नति में उपयुक्त पाया गया था। श्री मनोज कु मार भगत के विरूद्ध विभागीय जाँच संस्थित होने के कारण उनका नाम पदोन्नति हेतु अनुपयुक्त मान्य करते हुये श्री मनोज कु मार भगत का नाम पदोन्नति सूची से हटाया जाना प्रस्तावित है।"
10. In the same proceedings, it is also mentioned that on the date of convening of review DPC meeting dated 10.02.2021 no opinion is received by the establishment about pendency or initiation of enquiry against petitioner, it cannot be made available to the review DPC. It was made available only on 04.10.2021. In the aforementioned facts of the case also, where on the date of meeting convened of the review DPC on 10.02.2021, there was no material before the DPC that any enquiry is pending against petitioner.
11. In the aforementioned facts of the case and discussion made above, when the candidature of petitioner was considered on 10.02.2021 in a review DPC meeting with reference to the meeting of DPC dated 29.09.2018 then in the opinion of this Court the candidature of petitioner is to be considered based on the records of prior to 29.09.2018 for his promotion. The review DPC could not have taken into consideration the subsequent ACRs or material against petitioner. Pendency of departmental enquiry because of which petitioner was held to be non-suitable was of the year 2019 or thereafter and not available on 29.09.2018 and therefore respondents have committed error in arriving at a conclusion that the petitioner was not suitable for promotion in a review DPC meeting held on 10.02.2021 with reference to the meeting of DPC dated 29.09.2018, more so when the documents showing pendency of enquiry was made available much after the date of review DPC ie., 04.10.2021, whereas review DPC was held on 10.02.2021 8/8
12. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed and the respondents are directed to convene the meeting of review DPC with reference to the DPC meeting dated 29.09.2018 and pursuant to the observation made by the DPC in its meeting dated 10.02.2021, finding petitioner to be suitable as on 29.09.2018, name of petitioner be recommended for promotion and accordingly appropriate order to be passed in this regard for his promotion. Petitioner shall be granted notional promotion from 05.10.2018 when other employees considered along with petitioner, were promoted. Petitioner will be entitled for all consequential benefits with seniority.
Sd/-
PAWAN (Parth Prateem Sahu)
KUMAR
JHA
pwn Digitally
JUDGE
signed by
PAWAN
KUMAR JHA