Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

3. By the instant petition, the petitioner has questioned the validity, legality and propriety of order dated 02.04.2005 (Annexure-P/1) passed by respondent No.1 whereby the proceedings of Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC) convened on 18.08.2004 were cancelled assigning the reason that some complaint was made and was enquired about and on the basis of that enquiry report, decision had been taken for cancellation of the said DPC proceedings. Thereafter, by consequential order dated 02.06.2005 (Annexure-P/2), which is also impugned in this petition, respondent No.2 informed the Chief Medical and Health W. P. Nos. 4836/2005, 4837/2005, 4838/2005, 4839/2005, 4840/2005, 4841/2005 & 5623/2005 Officer, Hoshangabad, that the proceedings of DPC held on 18.08.2004 were cancelled and instructed him to convene a review DPC according to the rules and instructions issued by the State Government from time- to-time.

7. In this petition, the ground of challenge is that the orders impugned suffer from violation of the principle of audi alteram partem as no opportunity of hearing was provided to the petitioner and no notice was ever issued to him before cancellation of the DPC proceedings held on 18.08.2004.

8. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that as per the stand taken by the respondents, even on a complaint made against the irregularities in the proceedings of the DPC held on 18.08.2004, it is clear that there was no irregularity committed during the course of promotion to the post of Assistant Grade-III, as such, his promotion should not W. P. Nos. 4836/2005, 4837/2005, 4838/2005, 4839/2005, 4840/2005, 4841/2005 & 5623/2005 have been cancelled.

9. The respondents have filed the reply stating therein that on a complaint received by the authority alleging gross illegalities and irregularities in the DPC proceedings, an enquiry was conducted in which the statement of the members of the DPC was recorded and record of the DPC was also screened. The authority, thereafter, reached to a conclusion that certain mandatory requirements have not been fulfilled; even the provisions of the Madhya Pradesh Promotion Reservation Rules, 2002, were also not followed. The names of the persons working in the Work Charged Contingency Establishment have also been considered. It is also pointed-out that ignoring the claim of the seniors, junior persons have been recommended for promotion.

27. So far as the petitioner in W.P. No.4841/2005 namely, Ashok Kumar Garhwal, is concerned, he was promoted to the post of Assistant Grade-II. Since the order impugned cancelling the DPC proceedings held on 18.08.2004, is set-aside, therefore, he would be continued on the post of Assistant Grade-II unless the foundation of his promotion i.e. DPC proceedings held on 18.08.2004 is disturbed or set-aside.

28. Accordingly, these petitions stand allowed with the aforesaid observations and directions.