Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Ram Awatar Verma vs M/O Finance on 15 October, 2015
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
PRINCIPAL BENCH
OA No-927/2014
Order Reserved on 03.08.2015
Order Pronounced on:15.10.2015
Hon'ble Mr. Sudhir Kumar, Member (A)
Hon'ble Dr. Brahm Avtar Agrawal, Member (J)
Shri Ram Awatar Verma
S/o Shri Nathmal Verma
R/o E/4 Income Tax Colony,
Residency Area, Indore (M.P.) -Applicant
(By Advocate: Shri Ajesh Luthra)
Versus
1. Union of India
Through Secretary
Department of Revenue
Ministry of Finance
North Block, New Delhi.
2. The Chairman
Central Board of Direct Taxes
Department of Revenue
Ministry of Finance, North Block
New Delhi-110001 -Respondents
(By Advocate: Shri R.N. Singh)
ORDER
Per Sudhir Kumar, Member (A):
This O.A. has been filed by the applicant seeking promotion to the post of Commissioner of Income-tax (CIT, in short) with effect from the date his juniors were so promoted, as now it cannot be said that on the relevant date the applicant was either under suspension or charge- sheeted in a departmental case, or was facing any criminal charge. The applicant's case is that there has been a change in the circumstances, 2 OA No-927/2014 which entails review of the DPC which had been convened in 2007, but has not been re-convened till date. Hence this OA.
2. On the date of filing of the O.A. on 11.03.2014, the applicant was posted at Indore as Additional Commissioner with the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT, in short).
3. Prior to that, while he was posted at Jaipur as Joint Commissioner of Income-tax, a raid was conducted by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI, in short) at his premises on 11.06.2002, and subsequently he was placed under suspension vide order dated 26.06.2002. Based upon the CBI raid, a case bearing No. RC-JAI-2002 A-0011 pertaining to acquisition of disproportionate assets was registered against the applicant by the CBI u/s 13(2) read with 13 (1) (c) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The Department had also initiated a disciplinary enquiry (DE, in short) against him through Memorandum dated 06.11.2006 (Annexure A-4 of the OA). Around 07 years later, the suspension was revoked on 02.07.2009, and through orders dated 09.07.2009, he was posted as Joint Commissioner, and later on promoted to the selection grade of Additional Commissioner w.e.f. 24.10.2000, through Notifications dated 09.03.2012 read with order dated 13.12.2012.
4. When his order of suspension had been withdrawn, and he was posted as Joint Commissioner on 09.07.2009 at Jodhpur, he had 3 OA No-927/2014 approached the Jodhpur Bench of this Tribunal in the second round in his OA No.30/2010 before that Bench, seeking monetary benefits in respect of the revocation of his order of suspension. The Bench at Jodhpur that day, which coincidentally included one of us, had, through oral order dated 03.05.2011, ordered as follows:-
"Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2. Based on the earlier findings of the Tribunal, and the real meaning of F.R. 54, the applicant is entitled to the monetary consequences of the suspension being withdrawn. But we hasten to add that here that the relief claimed as to "the real terms of the consequences" cannot be extended any further other than monetary terms. The disciplinary proceedings against the applicant and the criminal trial now pending against him cannot be affected by the grant of consequences flowing from the earlier order of the Tribunal. The Original Application is, thus, allowed to the limited extent as stated above and he shall be granted monetary consequences of the order in his favour. There shall be no order as to costs".
(Emphasis supplied)
5. In compliance of that order of this Tribunal, through order dated 09.03.2012, the respondents placed the applicant in Non-Functional Selection Grade (NFSG, in short) w.e.f. 24.10.2000 till 21.04.2009 (Annexure A-1).
6. The applicant has stated that as per the order sheet of the Trial Court of Special Judge for CBI cases, Jaipur, Rajasthan, obtained by him and produced at Annexure A-5, the case in Trial Court has not progressed against him for the last 10 years, and even the charges have not been framed. However, a perusal of the copy of the order sheet of the CBI Special Judge's Court produced at pages 46 & 47, it is seen that he had moved an application u/s 173 (5) Cr. P.C. for cancellation of 4 OA No-927/2014 warrants dated 14.08.2008 against him, which prayer was accepted, and the case was then fixed for 19.05.2011. On 19.05.2011, a prayer was made on his behalf for exemption from his personal appearance before the Trial Court, which prayer was also accepted for that day, with the order that the accused should be present in future, and the case was adjourned to 04.08.2011. On 04.08.2011 once again he had moved an application for exemption from his personal appearance, which was again permitted, and the case was adjourned to 07.10.2011, again with the instructions that in future the accused shall be present in person. The Order Sheet of the later dates of hearing have not been filed. Therefore, the contention of the applicant that the charges in the criminal case have not been framed against him cannot be accepted on its face value, since the charges could not be framed at least on these two occasions due to his own prayers, when applications for exemption of his personal appearance had been moved by him before the Trial Court.
7. The applicant has submitted that the respondents have since realized that even the Memorandum and Articles of Charges issued to him through Annexure A-4 dated 06.11.2006 are a nullity, since they had not been approved by his Disciplinary Authority, the Union Finance Minister, because of which the respondents had to pass another order dated 23.01.2014, through which he has been informed that the Disciplinary Authority has since accorded approval on 08.01.2014 to the Charge Memorandum earlier issued to him, and he has approved the 5 OA No-927/2014 continuation of the DE proceedings against him from the stage where the DE proceedings stood before the Charge Memorandum was formally approved by the Disciplinary Authority.
8. The applicant has submitted that no DE proceedings had actually started pursuant to the Charge Memorandum dated 06.11.2006, and hence it is really of no significance now when the respondents have indicated that the stage of the DE will remain the same, and the fresh order of DE cannot be said to have validated the proceedings carried out against him pursuant to the earlier order of the year 2006, since no DE proceedings had been carried out on either of the two orders, dated 06.11.2006, or dated 23.01.2014, so far.
9. The applicant's grievance is that in the interregnum his juniors were substantively promoted to the grade of Additional Commissioner of Income-tax, and further to the grade of CIT, but he was not so promoted, due to the respondents taking recourse to the Govt. of India OM dated 14.09.1992, which envisages withholding of promotion if the officer concerned is (1) under suspension, or (2) Charge-sheeted in a domestic proceeding, or (3) is being prosecuted in a criminal charge. He has submitted that since his case is not covered in any of the above three situations enumerated in the said OM dated 14.09.1992, which alone could have enabled the respondents to withhold his promotion, and his suspension has also been revoked w.e.f. 01.09.2004, and the period of his suspension has also been treated as period spent on duty, the 6 OA No-927/2014 Charge-Sheet dated 06.11.2006 was a nullity till 23.01.2014, and also no charges have been framed in the criminal case pending against him. Therefore, the applicant has claimed that the respondents were required to consider his case for promotion to the post of CIT from the date his juniors had been so promoted, w.e.f. 28.03.2007. He submitted that he had submitted a representation to the authorities in this regard on 14.02.2014, through Annexure A-9, but they have not taken any action on that representation so far.
10. The applicant has claimed that his case for promotion is covered by a number of orders of this Tribunal, as well as judgments of the Delhi High Court, which he had annexed as Annexures A-10 to A-14 as follows:-
"i) Satish Singh Aswal vs. Govt. of NCT of Delhi in OA No.2540/2010 decided on 23.05.2011;
ii) R.P. Singh vs. Govt. of NCT of Delhi in OA No.1604/2009 decided on 23.12.2009;
iii) Chacko Eapen vs. Union of India Ernakulam Bench judgment in OA No.1131/2011 decided on 08.02./2012;
iv) B.S. Bola, IPS vs. Union of India in OA No.1919/2008 decided on 11.08.2009;
v) Union of India vs. Om Prakash in Writ Petition (Civil) No. 7810/2008 by Delhi High Court decided on 27.11.2008".
11. These very points have been repeated by the applicant in the grounds taken by him for filing the present O.A. He had taken the ground that since no charges have been framed by the Criminal Court in the criminal case registered again him, ever since the year 2004, and 7 OA No-927/2014 thus, it cannot be said that he is being prosecuted for a criminal charge in a Court of Law. It was submitted that unless the criminal charges have been framed, and the trial begins, mere pendency of a criminal case for a decade cannot mean that he would stand deprived of his promotion. He had further taken the ground that the Charge-Sheet issued to him in the year 2006 has been admitted by the respondent Department itself, as having been a nullity, for the lack of jurisdiction and competence, which had to be rectified through the issuance of the OM dated 23.01.2014 (supra), and, therefore, it cannot also be said that he has to be treated as, or deemed to be, facing any DE proceedings.
12. The applicant has further taken the ground that the factors enumerated in the OM dated 14.09.1992 had existed against him as on 28.03.2007. However, in view of the subsequent developments, the said three factors do not exist now retrospectively as on 28.03.2007, and, therefore, his case requires re-consideration and he is required to be promoted w.e.f. 28.03.2007.
13. He took the further ground that when he had been granted NFSG with effect from the due date because of the orders of this Tribunal's Jodhpur Bench in his OA No.30/2010, similar treatment is required to be given to him now, when the departmental charge sheet earlier issued has also been held to be non-est and void. It was submitted that it cannot be countenanced in law that the applicant's juniors stood promoted w.e.f. 28.03.2007, while he was left out, even though as on 8 OA No-927/2014 that date, no adverse material existed against him. He had, therefore, taken the ground that respondents ought to have convened a review DPC, and considered his case for promotion w.e.f. 28.03.2007, in view of the change in circumstances, and hence he had prayed for the following reliefs:-
"a) direct the respondents to consider and appoint him by way of promotion to the post/grade of Commissioner w.e.f. the date his juniors have been promoted by convening of a review DPC with all consequential benefits;
b) award costs of the proceedings and
c) pass any other order/direction which this Hon'ble
Tribunal deem fit and proper in favour of the
applicant and against the respondents in the facts and circumstances of the case".
14. The respondents filed their counter reply on 30.01.2015. It was submitted by them that no cause of action whatsoever has accrued to the applicant to file the present OA, as none of his statutory, fundamental or legal right has been infringed by any of the actions of the respondents. They had further taken the preliminary objection that the OA is barred by limitation, delay and laches, and, therefore, deserves to be dismissed. It was submitted that the first Charge-Sheet issued to him on 06.11.2006 for DE proceedings had to be reviewed in view of the judgment dated 05.09.2013 of the Supreme Court in the case of Union of India vs. B.V. Gopinath & Ors., JT 2013 (12) SC 392 and, therefore, the relevant file was placed before the Disciplinary Authority, who had, after examining the facts and circumstances of the case, accorded his approval for the Charge Memorandum on 08.01.2014, and had also approved the 9 OA No-927/2014 continuation of the DE proceedings from the stage where they stood before the Charge Memorandum was so formally approved. It was, therefore, submitted that no infirmity was attached to the Charge-Sheet issued to the applicant for the DE proceedings.
15. It was submitted that in B.V. Gopinath vs. Union of India (supra) when the case was decided by this Tribunal on 05.02.2009 in OA No.800/2008, this Tribunal had granted liberty to the respondents for taking appropriate action to rectify the defects and issuance of Charge- Sheets in accordance with law. When that order of the Tribunal was upheld by the Supreme Court vide its order dated 05.09.2013, the Hon'ble Finance Minister had on 08.01.2014 approved for continuation of the DE proceedings from the stage at which those proceedings stood, and the charge sheet earlier issued on 06.11.2006 was treated as dropped. It was denied that the applicant was not facing any DE proceedings prior to 8th January, 2014. It was submitted that there was only a technical issue in the earlier charge sheet, which was rectified by getting the earlier charge sheet itself approved by the Hon'ble Finance Minister, as permitted by this Tribunal's order dated 05.02.2009, and after such approval, the new charge sheet was issued in its place. There was no change in its substance, and further directions had been obtained to continue the DE proceedings from the stage where the earlier DE had reached. It was, therefore, submitted that there is no merit in the OA, and it deserves to be dismissed.
10
OA No-927/2014
16. The applicant filed his rejoinder on 24.02.2015. The only new point made in this rejoinder was that it was wrong on the part of the respondents to say that the quashment of the earlier charge sheet due to it having been issued by a non-competent authority was a merely technical issue, and it was submitted that it was clear that the charge sheet earlier issued to the applicant on 06.11.2006 was non-est, nullity and void in law. It was further pointed out that even after issuance of the charge sheet in the year 2006, the DE did not progress at all, and hence merely reciting in the quashment order that the DE shall continue from the stage where it stood earlier under the dropped charge sheet was meaningless and insignificant. It was submitted by the applicant that by virtue of the quashment of the charge sheet, there remained nothing adverse against the applicant w.e.f. November, 2006, and that this change in circumstances had to be given effect to by the respondents by conducting a review DPC.
17. Heard. In his arguments, the learned counsel for the applicant further relied upon Paragraphs 25,26,30,31 & 32 of the judgment of the Supreme Court in Chairman-cum-M.D. Coal India Ltd., & Ors. Vs. Ananta Saha & Ors. in Civil Appeal No.2958/2011 arising out of SLP (C) No.1100/2009, in which the law has been laid down as follows:-
"25. There can be no quarrel with the settled legal proposition that the disciplinary proceedings commence only when a chargesheet is issued to the delinquent employee. (Vide: Union of India etc. etc. v. K.V. Jankiraman etc. etc., AIR 1991 SC 2010; and UCO Bank & Anr. v. Rajinder Lal Capoor, (2007) 6 SCC 694).11
OA No-927/2014
26. The High Court had given liberty to the appellants to hold de- novo enquiry, meaning thereby that the entire earlier proceedings including the chargesheet issued earlier stood quashed. In such a fact-situation, it was not permissible for the appellants to proceed on the basis of the chargesheet issued earlier. In view thereof, the question of initiating a fresh enquiry without giving a fresh chargesheet could not arise.
27 to 29. Xxxxxxxxxxxx(Not reproduced here)
30. It is a settled legal proposition that if initial action is not in consonance with law, subsequent proceedings would not sanctify the same. In such a fact-situation, the legal maxim "sublato fundamento cadit opus" is applicable, meaning thereby, in case a foundation is removed, the superstructure falls.
31. In Badrinath v. Govt. of Tamil Nadu & Ors., AIR 2000 SC 3243, this Court observed that once the basis of a proceeding is gone, all consequential acts, actions, orders would fall to the ground automatically and this principle of consequential order which is applicable to judicial and quasi-judicial proceedings is equally applicable to administrative orders.
(See also State of Kerala v. Puthenkavu N.S.S. Karayogam & Anr., (2001) 10 SCC 191; and Kalabharati Advertising v. Hemant Vimalnath Narichania & Ors. AIR 2010 SC 3745 ).
32. As in the instant case, there had been no proper initiation of disciplinary proceedings after the first round of litigation, all other consequential proceedings stood vitiated and on that count no fault can be found with the impugned judgment and order of the High Court".
18. We have given very careful consideration to the facts of the case. There is no denying the fact that the applicant was under suspension w.e.f. 11.06.2002, and when his order of suspension was quashed by the Jodhpur Bench of this Tribunal through its order dated 08.02.2007 in the first round of litigation, he was allowed to draw full pay and allowances w.e.f. 01.09.2004, i.e., 90 days from 02.06.2004 to the date of approval of revocation of his suspension by the Competent Authority, i.e., upto 19.02.2008. Further, the period from 01.09.2004 to 19.02.2008 12 OA No-927/2014 has been treated as a period spent on duty as per FR 54-B through the order dated 31.12.2012 (Annexure A-2) of the OA. Therefore, the rigour of his suspension w.e.f. 11.06.2002, ordered on 26.06.2002, continued only till 31.08.2004, for a period of about more than two years and two months, during which he would have been eligible to draw subsistence allowance as admissible during the period of suspension. The date on which his juniors were promoted on 28.03.2007 has now been treated to be on duty for the applicant.
19. However, as was made amply clear by the order dated 03.05.2011 passed in the applicant's second OA No.30/2010 before Jodhpur Bench of this Tribunal, "based on the earlier findings of the Tribunal" ïn the applicant's first OA, the applicant was only held to be "entitled to the monetary consequences of the suspension being withdrawn", under "the real meaning of FR-54". But, as is clear from the order as reproduced above, the Bench had hastened "to add that the relief claimed as to "the real terms of the consequences" cannot be extended any further other than monetary terms".
20. The applicant did not challenge this order dated 03.05.2011 passed in his second OA No.30/2010 by the Jodhpur Bench of this Tribunal and it attained finality, and, therefore, he cannot claim to be extended any further relief relating to that period "other than the monetary consequences of the suspension being withdrawn". Therefore, as per the order dated 03.05.2011 of Jodhpur Bench of this Tribunal, signed by 13 OA No-927/2014 one of us also, which has attained finality, the applicant cannot now be allowed to state before us in the present OA that he is eligible to be further extended "the real terms of the consequences", of being considered to be eligible for promotion along with his juniors on 28.03.2007, which relief prayed for by him in that O.A. itself was specifically disallowed by the Jodhpur Bench on 03.05.2011.
21. Further, the Jodhpur Bench had that day further gone on to take judicial notice of the fact that disciplinary proceedings and criminal trial were both pending against him as on that date, and it was further ordered that they also "cannot be affected by the grant of consequences flowing from the earlier order of the Tribunal" in his first OA. As pointed out above also, since the applicant did not challenge that order dated 03.05.2011 of the Jodhpur Bench of this Tribunal in his second OA No.30/2011 filed there, he cannot now be allowed to further state that both the disciplinary proceedings and the criminal trial were not pending against him on the relevant date, after judicial notice of their pendency had been taken note of, which order attained finality.
22. The discrepancy in the issuance of the earlier Memorandum and Articles of Charges against him dated 06.11.2006 was not a discrepancy under law till 14.12.2011, when the same Bench at Jodhpur pronounced its order in OA No.89/2009, "Prem Prakash vs. Union of India & Ors.", which has been stayed by the Jodhpur Bench of Rajasthan High Court, or later till the Supreme Court pronounced its judgment dated 05.09.2013 in Union of India & Ors. vs. B.V. Gopinath (supra). 14
OA No-927/2014 Therefore also the applicant cannot be allowed to state today that in the time period from 06.11.2006 to 04.09.2013, before the pronouncement of the law of the land by the Supreme Court on 05.09.2013 in Union of India & Ors. vs. B.V. Gopinath (supra), there were no valid proceedings pending against him, as he had failed to lay a challenge to the judicial notice of the pendency of such proceedings taken by the Jodhpur Bench of the Tribunal in the order passed in his second OA on 03.05.2011 (supra).
23. The judgment of the Supreme Court in Union of India & Ors. vs. B.V. Gopinath (supra) on 05.09.2013 changed the complexion of innumerable disciplinary proceedings all over the country, and rendered them to be either void, or voidable, from that date onwards. However, through their order dated 23.01.2014, which the applicant himself has brought on record, the respondents had obtained approval of the Disciplinary Authority of the applicant on 08.01.2014 to the same Memorandum and Articles of Charges as were earlier issued to him, and the Disciplinary Authority had further approved continuation of the DE proceedings from the stage where they stood before that Charge Memorandum was formally approved by the Disciplinary Authority on 08.01.2014.
24. The applicant has not laid a challenge to this OM dated 23.01.2014 in the present OA. Therefore, this OM holds the field, and the applicant cannot be allowed to claim today that he was free of blemish, without any 15 OA No-927/2014 disciplinary proceedings pending against him as on 28.03.2007, when his juniors were promoted. In fact, a combined reading of the Memorandum and Articles of Charges served upon the applicant on 06.11.2006, with the OM of 14.01.2014, would reveal that only for the period from 05.09.2013 up to 07.01.2014, i.e., from the date of pronouncement of the Supreme Court's judgment in Union of India & Ors. vs. B.V. Gopinath (supra), to the date prior to the date of approval to the same Memorandum and Articles of Charges by the Disciplinary Authority and for continuation of the same DE proceedings, from the stage where they stood before such approval on 08.01.2014, perhaps only for the limited period of 4 months and 3 days, the applicant did not have a valid disciplinary proceedings pending against him, in spite of the orders of the Jodhpur Bench of this Tribunal dated 03.05.2011 in his second OA No.30/2011 (supra).
25. The learned counsel for the applicant had very heavily relied upon the law as laid down by the Supreme Court in Chairman-Cum-M.D., Coal India Ltd. & Ors. vs. Ananta Saha & Ors. (supra), and the particular paragraphs as reproduced above. Under that very pronouncement of the law of the land by the Supreme Court, as in Para- 25 of that judgment, there can be no quarrel with the settled legal proposition that the disciplinary proceedings against the applicant had commenced as soon as a charge-sheet was issued to the applicant on 06.11.2006, and were pending till that charge-sheet and Memorandum and Articles of Charges came to be rendered technically unlawful on 16 OA No-927/2014 05.09.2013, when the Supreme Court pronounced its judgment in Union of India & Ors. vs. B.V. Gopinath (supra). The same conclusion flows from the ratio of the case "D.D.A. vs. H.C.Khurana, AIR 1993 SC 1488", also. Therefore, in the month of March 2007, when his juniors were promoted on 28.03.2007, the applicant did have an on-going DE pending against him, and a disciplinary enquiry was in place both in terms of Para-25 of the Supreme Court judgment in Chairman-Cum- M.D., Coal India Ltd. & Ors. vs. Ananta Saha & Ors. (supra) and D.D.A. vs. H.C.Khurana (supra).
28. It cannot be anybody's case that the OM dated 23.01.2014 issued by the respondents would be hit by Para-30 of Supreme Court judgment in Chairman-Cum-M.D., Coal India Ltd. & Ors. vs. Ananta Saha & Ors. (supra). The initial action of the institution of the DE proceedings against the applicant taken on 06.11.2006 was very much in consonance with law as it was understood at that point of time, and judicial notice of the same was taken by the Jodhpur Bench of this Tribunal as late as on 03.05.2011. As stated above also, the illegality or infirmity, if any, in that earlier Charge Memorandum crept in only on 05.09.2013, when the Supreme Court pronounced its order in "Union of India & Ors. vs. B.V. Gopinath" (supra). But then, though the foundation of the DE proceedings against the applicant had got shaken somewhat for the period of 03 months and 4 days, the foundation came to be firmly replaced and reinstalled back on 08.01.2014, when his Disciplinary Authority, after examining the facts and circumstances of the case, gave 17 OA No-927/2014 approval to the very same Memorandum and Articles of Charges and Charge Sheet, which had been issued to him earlier on 06.11.2006, and also further ordered for continuation of the DE proceedings from the very same stage at which they stood prior to such approval by the Disciplinary Authority. Therefore, Paragraphs 30,31 & 32 of the Supreme Court's judgment in Chairman-Cum-M.D., Coal India Ltd. & Ors. vs. Ananta Saha & Ors. (supra), would not enure any benefit to the applicant of the instant case.
27. Further, the applicant has very careful chosen to file the order sheet of the Court of the CBI Special Judge, Jaipur, relating to only three dates in the year 2011. The case was fixed for arguments on framing of charges for 19.05.2011. But, both on 19.05.2011, and on 04.08.2011 thereafter, the applicant could somehow file applications for exemption from personal appearance, which were allowed and the charges could not be framed against him. Therefore, having himself manipulated to avoid attending the Court, and avoid attending the arguments on framing of charges against him by the Court of the CBI Special Judge, Jaipur, the applicant cannot now be allowed to claim that since no charges have been framed against him by the Criminal Court, no criminal case is pending against him.
28. In fact the very fact that the report of the police officer on completion of investigation u/s 173(5) was filed as long back as on 14.08.2008, and was pending consideration for framing of charges before 18 OA No-927/2014 the CBI Special Judge, goes to show that it is only delay before the Court of the CBI Special Judge, caused partly by the applicant himself, by repeatedly seeking exemption from personal appearance, which are normally not allowed to the accused by the Criminal Courts, because of which the charges could not be framed in the case, but the applicant cannot now be allowed to claim benefit of the Criminal Court's indulgence, and state that there is no criminal case is pending against him at all.
29. To that extent, even the observation of the Jodhpur Bench of this Tribunal dated 03.05.2011 in the applicant's second OA No.30/2010, which had not been challenged by the applicant, would operate against him, because in that Order judicial notice of the pendency of the criminal trial had been taken by the Bench that day, and the applicant had chosen to remain silent, and has not challenged that in the last 4 years.
30. Learned counsel for the respondents had also taken objection to the aspect of the territorial jurisdiction, on the ground that the applicant had filed this OA before the Principal Bench at Delhi, while being posted at Indore, but since the Bench which had heard the case on the point of admission on 19.03.2014 had admitted the case, and ordered issuance of notices to the respondents, we do not consider it appropriate to rake up the issue of jurisdiction at this stage.
31. However, as discussed above, there is no merit in the OA, and the applicant cannot be allowed to seek the relief of being considered for promotion, by convening a review DPC, for consideration of his 19 OA No-927/2014 promotion, with effect from the date his juniors had been promoted, with all consequential benefits, because that very consequential benefit had been specifically denied to the applicant earlier also by the Jodhpur Bench of this Tribunal on 03.05.2011, and his prayer is, therefore, also hit by the principle of res judicata.
32. As a result, we find no merit in this OA, and the OA is, therefore, dismissed, but there shall be no order as to costs.
(Dr. Brahm Avtar Agrawal) (Sudhir Kumar)
Member (J) Member (A)
cc.