Punjab-Haryana High Court
Punjab Gramin Bank And Another vs Vipin Kumar Puri on 8 May, 2012
Bench: Satish Kumar Mittal, T.P.S.Mann
Letters Patent Appeal 1690 of 2011 -1 -
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
Letters Patent Appeal 1690 of 2011
Date of decision: May 08, 2012
Punjab Gramin Bank and another
.....Appellants
VERSUS
Vipin Kumar Puri
.....Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SATISH KUMAR MITTAL
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE T.P.S.MANN
PRESENT: Mr N.C.Sahni, Advocate
for the appellants.
T.P.S.MANN, J.
The present appeal filed under Clause X of the Letters Patent is directed against the order dated 23.3.2011 passed by learned Single Judge whereby the writ petition (CWP 44 of 2008) preferred by the respondent, claiming mandamus to direct the appellants to consider and promote him from Clerical cadre to Officers Scale-1 cadre with effect from the date his juniors have been promoted, had been allowed by making the interim order dated 28.1.2011 as absolute and with a direction to the appellant Bank to consider his case for promotion with effect from the date his juniors were promoted. He was also held entitled to all the consequential benefits. Needful was ordered to be done within a period of four months from the date of receipt of certified copy of the order.
Letters Patent Appeal 1690 of 2011 -2 -
In his writ petition, the respondent had averred that he was working in the Punjab Gramin Bank (hereinafter referred to as "the appellant Bank") and posted at its branch office at Amritsar as Clerk-cum- Cashier. Earlier the bank used to work under the name of "Gurdaspur- Amritsar Kshetria Gramin Vikas Bank" with its head office at Tibri road, Gurdaspur. Later-on, it was amalgamated with two other banks at Kapurthala. While the respondent was working at Gurdaspur-Amritsar Kshetriya Gramin Vikas Bank and posted at Branch Office, Saidpur, he was informed vide letter dated 12.10.2000 that his name fell within the consideration zone for promotion from Clerical cadre to Officer Scale-1 cadre. Accordingly, he was advised to attend the interview on 2.11.2000. The respondent appeared for interview and vide letter dated 30.4.2001, he was informed that his name for promotion from Clerical cadre to Officer Scale-1 cadre had been approved by the Board of Directors. Meanwhile, he was served with a charge sheet dated 3.4.2001. On account of the same, his promotion as Scale-1 Officer was deferred whereas all other persons, including his juniors upto serial No. 19, as mentioned in the list of eligible employees, were promoted and given posting and benefits were also given to them with effect from 2.11.2000 i.e. the date of interview. Regular departmental enquiry was conducted in respect of the charges levelled against the respondent. Vide letter dated 4.1.2003 passed by the Chairman of Gurdaspur-Amritsar Kshetriya Gramin Vikas Bank, he was informed that charges levelled against him could not be proved and consequently, he was exonerated of the same. Despite the fact that he stood exonerated from all Letters Patent Appeal 1690 of 2011 -3 -
the charges and his name had already been approved by the Board of Directors for promotion to Officer Scale-I cadre, the respondent was not promoted. He then made representations dated 15.1.2003 and 7.2.2003 that he be granted promotion with retrospective effect but no action was taken upon the same. Before he could submit 3rd representation on 10.5.2003, he was served with another charge sheet dated 19.4.2003. The charges levelled in the said charge sheet had absolutely no concern or connection with the relevant period for considering his case for promotion which had already been approved by the Board of Directors vide letter dated 30.4.2001. He, however, stated that on the basis of charge sheet dated 19.4.2003, punishment of reduction of pay to next lower of two stages had been imposed upon him vide order dated 8.9.2004. His representation dated 10.5.2003 was, thereafter, addressed by General Manager of the bank who, vide letter dated 15.7.2003 informed him that his representations were placed before the Board of Directors in its meeting dated 28.6.2003 whereby the Board decided to put up the matter for consideration alongwith the decision of DAC case pending against him. Although the other matter which was initiated against the respondent had also been decided even then the matter was not considered by the Board of Directors. The respondent kept on repeatedly representing to grant him the promotion but no action was taken by the appellants thereupon. However, vide letter dated 27.9.2004 he was simply informed that his representations would be put up before the Board for consideration and the decision taken thereupon conveyed to him. Accordingly, by knocking the doors of this Court, he Letters Patent Appeal 1690 of 2011 -4 -
prayed for issuance of direction to the appellant Bank to promote him from Clerical cadre to Officer Scale-1 cadre with effect from the date his juniors had been promoted and to grant him other reliefs to which he was entitled to.
The writ petition was resisted by the appellants on the grounds that in the subsequent charge sheet dated 9.4.2003 which was served upon him, the respondent had been held guilty and punishment of stoppage of two annual increments had been imposed and therefore, he was not entitled for promotion to Officers Scale-1 cadre.
On 28.1.2011, the following interim order was passed by the learned Single Judge in the writ petition:
" The petitioner was serving the respondent-Bank as a Clerk- cum-Cashier at the relevant time. He was eligible to be considered for promotion to Officers Scale-1. The Departmental Promotion Committee considered the case of all the eligible Clerks including of the petitioner on 2nd November, 2000. The DPC recommended the promotion of petitioner and some of his juniors which was approved by the Board on 30th April, 2001. The juniors to the petitioners were then promoted w.e.f. 31.12.2000.
However, before the petitioner could be promoted, a charge-sheet was issued to him on 3rd April, 2001. It is the admitted case that pursuant to a regular enquiry, the petitioner was exonerated and the charges against him were dropped on 4th January, 2003.
It would, thus, be seen that there was absolutely no adverse material against the petitioner as on the date when the DPC met i.e. on 2nd November, 2000 and/or on the date when Letters Patent Appeal 1690 of 2011 -5 -
the recommendations made by the DPC were approved by the Board on 30.04.2001. The petitioner, prima facie, ought to have been promoted from the date when his juniors were promoted i.e. w.e.f. 31.12.2000. However, the petitioner's promotion was again withheld as meanwhile another charge sheet dated 19th April, 2003 was issued to him wherein he was held guilty and the punishment of stoppage of two increments was imposed.
It appears that the subsequent misconduct in relation to which the disciplinary proceedings were initiated vide charge- sheet dated 19th April, 2003 could have no bearing on the petitioner's claim for promotion as on 2nd November, 2000 or on 30th April, 2001. However, without expressing any final view at this stage and as prayed for by learned counsel for the Bank, the matter is adjourned to 01.03.2001 to enable him to have fresh instructions in the matter."
In pursuance of the aforesaid order, the Court was informed by the appellant Bank about its inability to re-consider or promote the respondent as it was bound by circular dated 21.7.2006 (Annexure R-1/A) issued by the Central Vigilance Commission, Government of India. This objection was held to be wholly untenable by learned Single Judge. Though it was mentioned in the said circular that an employee who had been recommended for promotion by the Departmental Promotion Committee but before he is actually promoted, if he is placed under suspension or a charge sheet is issued to him or prosecution for criminal charge is pending, in that event such employee shall not be promoted and his case shall also be placed in a sealed cover yet the facts were different in the present case as Letters Patent Appeal 1690 of 2011 -6 -
the claim of the respondent was considered on 2.11.2000 and recommendations made by the Departmental Promotion Committee were approved by the Board of Directors on 30.4.2001. Therefore, the relevant period in the case of the respondent was from November, 2000 to April, 2001 and at that time neither any charge sheet was contemplated nor issued to him. It was only after a long period of three years that charge sheet dated 19.4.2003 was issued in which the respondent was held guilty and punished. Accordingly, the writ petition was allowed and while making the order dated 28.1.2011 as absolute, directions were issued to the appellant Bank to consider the case of the respondent for promotion with effect from the date his juniors were promoted. He was also held entitled to all the consequential benefits.
Learned counsel for the appellants has once again relied upon circular dated 21.7.2006 (Annexure R 1/A) issued by the Central Vigilance Commission to submit that the recommendations of the Departmental Promotion Committee were to be kept in abeyance till finalization of the enquiry proceedings and only when employee is completely exonerated of the charges against him that he could be promoted. However, in the present case the claim of the respondent for promotion was considered on 2.11.2000 and the Board of Directors approved the recommendations of the Departmental Promotion Committee on 30.4.2001. As in the meanwhile, charge sheet dated 3.4.2001 had been served upon the respondent, the case of the respondent for promotion was deferred. The charge sheet dated 3.4.2001 ended in smoke as the respondent was exonerated of the charges Letters Patent Appeal 1690 of 2011 -7 -
against him on 4.1.2003. Despite the same, the case of the respondent for promotion was not taken up. Instead, on 19.4.2003, another charge sheet was served which had no bearing on the claim of the respondent for promotion as on 2.11.2000 and upto 30.4.2001. Therefore, the case of the respondent for promotion could not have been kept in limbo. Accordingly, learned Single Judge was justified in directing the appellant Bank to consider the case of the respondent for promotion with effect from the date his juniors were promoted.
The appeal is without any merit and, therefore, dismissed.
(SATISH KUMAR MITTAL) (T.P.S.MANN) May 08, 2012 JUDGE JUDGE pds.