Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

6. On our asking, Mr. Doctor, learned advocate appearing for the respondents had brought the file of the 199 3 selection of PA "C" of the ISRO and perusing that file, we find that 1991 DPC comprised of 7 members whose names are as under:

(1)
Dr. George Joseph Chairman Shri OPN Calla Member Smt. S.S Joshi Member Shri K.S. Karnik Member Smt. D. Rustogi Member Shri M.M. Shah Member Shri BGV Subrahmanyam Member Out of these seven members, admittedly Shri OPN Calla and Dr. George Joseph were members of the 1987 DPC also. The minutes of the promotion Committee showed that Shri OPN Calla was not present when the DPC was convened for applicant's interview. Now according to the applicant, he had made allegations of involvement of Mr. Calla, Mr. M.M. Shah, and B.M. Joshi in HBA case in his preliminary inquiry, and therefore, these three members were prejudiced against him. Mr. Doctor, learned advocate for the respondents has pointed out that out of these three persons against whom allegations were made by the applicant, only Mr. Calla was the member of the 1987 DPC, while Mr. M.M. Shah and Mr. Joshi were the members of the 1991 DPC. Mr. Doctor has further pointed out that Mr. M.M. Shah was the inquiry officer in the inquiry against the applicant in which the applicant has been exonerated in the year 1991. He has also further pointed out that Mr. M.M. Shah was not a member of 1987 DPC wherein the applicant was not found fit for promotion and was not promoted and hence the allegation that the DPC members were prejudiced against him stands nullified. According to Mr. Doctor this fact shows that the allegations of the applicant that the members of the DPC were prejudiced against him as he had made some allegations against them in baseless and false.He has also pointed out that the O.M. requires that the candidates should obtain minimum 60% marks in the aggregate with a minimum 50% in each of the two elements for evaluation and as applicant had not been able to obtain minimum 50% marks in ACR as well as interview, he was not selected for 1987 and 1991 DPC.

7. Now inquiry against the applicant was started by giving him a charge sheet on dated 16.9.87 on the ground of his availing HBA by deceitful means. According to the applicant, prior to start of this inquiry against him, in his explanation he had stated thai other officers had also obtained HBA on false grounds and had even given names of three persons who constituted the DPC of 1991. Now when the DPC of 1987 met on dated 8.4.87 no charge sheet was given to the applicant and no inquiry had started against him. There was therefore, no question of any member of the DPC of 1987 being deliberately prejudiced against him. Furthermore, so far as the 1991 DPC is concerned, except the bare averment that he had made some allegations against the three members of the DPC and thereby they were prejudiced against him, there is nothing to show that any of the member of the DPC was in fact prejudiced against him and bore some grudge against him. It transpires from the record that the result of the applicant was kept in a sealed cover as the inquiry proceedings against him were not over at that time. In his O.A., the applicant has concealed this fact of his result having been kept in sealed cover and ultimately the sealed cover having been opened, after he was exonerated of the charges in the inquiry. As observed above, he had made allegations against Mr. M.M. Shah one of the members of the panel and the same member Mr. Shah had exonerated him of the charges levelled against him and had passed a reasoned order in favour of the applicant. It is therefore, not believable that he would have been prejudiced against the applicant and had grudge against the applicant, Furthermore, the DPC of 1991 comprised of 7 members. Even if one of the members of that committee was prejudiced against the applicant, it cannot be said that others would also be similarly prejudiced against him and would not select the applicant. When the allegations of mala fides are made the applicant is required to adduce sufficient material on record to show that the members of the selection committee were really prejudiced against him and on account of this prejudice, he was not selected. Merely saying that because he had made some allegations against the members of the selection committee and therefore, he was not selected is not sufficient to prove mala fides on the part of the promotion committee members. In the case of M.S. Bindra v. Union of India and ors., 1999 (2) SLJ 96, the Supreme Court has observed that merely having a particular version cannot be a proof of mala fide. Sufficient material is required to be brought on record. In the instant case neither the DPC members of 1987 or 1991 are made parties in this O.A nor any cogent evidence regarding allegations made against them and the members acting prejudicially against him is adduced by the applicant and therefore, the question of mala fides of the member of the DPC of 1991 does not arise. We find no merit in this allegation and reject this contention of the applicant.