Allahabad High Court
Dharam Pal Singh Rajpoot vs State Of U.P. And 5 Others on 24 September, 2019
Author: Sunita Agarwal
Bench: Sunita Agarwal
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ?Court No. - 36 Case :- WRIT - A No. - 9245 of 2019 Petitioner :- Dharam Pal Singh Rajpoot Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 5 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Manoj Gautam,Ashok Khare (Sr. Advocate) Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Amit Krishna,Krishna Agarawal Hon'ble Mrs. Sunita Agarwal,J.
Heard Sri Ashok Khare, learned senior Advocate assisted by Sri Manoj Gautam, learned counsel for the petitoner. Sri Krishna Agarwal for respondent nos.2 and 3. Sri Abhishek Srivastava, learned Advocate for respondent nos.4 and 5.
By means of the present petition the petitioner seeks mandamus commanding respondents to open the seal cover and implement the recommendation of the Departmental Promotion Committee of the year 2016-2017.
The contention is that the department enquiry initiated against the petitioner on the basis of the chargesheet dated 19.9.2013 has not been brought to its logical conclusion and the enquiry report submitted by the enquiry officer was not accepted by the disciplinary authority and direction was issued for fresh enquiry. Fresh enquiry proceeding has not been conducted though the petitioner is ready and willing to participate. It is contended that as per Clause '10' of the Government Order dated 28.5.1997, for the subject "in the matter of promotion for Government employees whose recommendations had been kept in seal cover," it is provided that in case departmental enquiry is prolonged for a long period, the competent authority shall consider for adhoc promotion of the delinquent employee on the conditions mentioned therein. Submission is that the charges against the petitioner are vague and the chargesheet is liable to be quashed for the simple reason that the disciplinary authority itself is not proceeding on the allegations in the charge sheet.
Sri Amit Krishna, learned counsel for respondent nos.2 and 3, on the basis of the stand taken in the counter affidavit, submits that the departmental enquiry could not be proceeded as there were some more allegations of misconduct against the petitioner into which a vigilance enquiry is pending.
This submission of learned Advocate for respondents cannot be accepted, in as much as, due to pendency of the vigilance enquiry, the disciplinary enquiry initiated into the definite charges levelled in the chargesheet dated 19.9.2013 cannot be prolonged. It is obligatory on the part of the respondents to bring the disciplinary enquiry to its logical conclusion.
At this stage learned senior Advocate for the petioner submits that the petitioner is ready and willing to cooperate in the departmental enquiry.
For the aforesaid, without expressing any opinion as to the merits of the claim of the petitioner, the present writ petition is being disposed of with the following directions:-
(i) The enquiry officer shall proceed with the departmental enquiry expeditiously by fixing short dates under due intimation to the petitioner.
(ii) The petitioner shall be under obligation to cooperate in the departmental enquiry.
(ii) The disciplinary authority shall ensure that the departmental proceeding shall be brought to its logical end, preferably, within a period of four months from today.
(iv) In case of any delay on the part of the department, soon after the expiry of period of four months, the seal cover shall be opened to consider the claim of the petitioner for grant of adhoc promotion giving due consideration to the terms and conditions of the Clause '10' of the Government Order dated 28.5.1997.
In any case, a reasoned and speaking order, in accordance with law, shall be passed in the matter of consideration of adhoc promotion, if circumstances so require.
Order Date :- 24.9.2019 Harshita