Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
R.S. Narang S/O Late Shri S D Narang vs Govt. Of Nct Of Delhi & Others on 20 October, 2010
Central Administrative Tribunal Principal Bench, New Delhi O.A.No.2682/2010 M.A.No.2120/2010 Wednesday, this the 20th day of October 2010 Honble Shri Shanker Raju, Member (J) Honble Dr. Veena Chhotray, Member (A) R.S. Narang s/o late Shri S D Narang r/o Flat No.312 New Modern Apartment, Sector9, Rohini ..Applicant (By Advocate: Shri M K Bhardwaj) Versus Govt. of NCT of Delhi & others 1. The Chief Secretary New Secretariat IP Estate, New Delhi 2. The Principal Secretary (Finance) 4th Level Delhi Secretariat IP Estate, New Delhi 3. The Deputy Secretary (Finance) 4th level Delhi Secretariat IP Estate, New Delhi ..Respondents (By Advocate: Ms. P K Gupta) O R D E R (ORAL)
Shri Shanker Raju:
Applicant, who assails non-promotion and is aggrieved by a reversion order dated 19.7.2010 from the post of Accounts Officer to a substantive post, contends that a prosecution sanction cannot be a bar for placing one in sealed cover and denying promotion. He has relied upon an identical decision of coordinate Bench of this Tribunal in B.S. Bola v. Union of India (OA-1919/2008) decided on 11.8.2009 wherein having regard to the decision of Apex Court in Union of India v. K.V. Jankiraman, JT 1991 (3) SC 527 as well as the decision of High Court of Delhi in Union of India v. Om Prakash (WP (C) No.7810/2008) decided on 27.11.2008, only because of prosecution sanction, directions have been issued to open the sealed cover and grant selection grade.
2. Respondents learned counsel, on the other hand, vehemently opposes the same and contends that apart from disproportionate assets, a prosecution sanction has already been issued against the applicant on 12.8.2005 under the Prevention of Corruption Act 1988. As such, the recommendation of the DPC in respect of the applicant for promotion on regular basis as Accounts Officer has been put under sealed cover.
3. On carefully considering the rival contentions of the parties, as we respectfully agree with the decision of coordinate Bench in B.S. Bola (supra), we do not find that the prosecution sanction is an impediment for denying promotion to the applicant, which is his fundamental right guaranteed under the Constitution of India. As such, the action of respondents placing the case of the applicant under sealed cover and reverting him to the substantive post whereas he should have been considered for regular promotion from the date his juniors had been accorded the same, is not justifiable.
4. Accordingly, the OA is allowed. Impugned order is set aside. Respondents are directed to open the sealed cover and give effect to it by considering the claim of the applicant for promotion. Meanwhile, the status quo already granted is made absolute. No costs.
( Dr. Veena Chhotray ) ( Shanker Raju ) Member (A) Member (J) /sunil/