Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

5. Counsel for the respondents, based upon the instructions contained in the counter affidavit, has also defended the impugned order on the said ground that the petitioner was facing criminal prosecution in CBI case popularly known as 'Fodder Scam Case'. Therefore, DPC did not make its recommendation.

6. I have considered the relevant materials on record in the light of the judgments relied upon by the petitioner. The proceedings of the DPC at Annexure-12 show that the Screening Committee of the Animal Husbandry Department taking into account the guidelines / principles enumerated in the matters of consideration of cases for grant of ACP / MACP, did not find the petitioner entitled to the same on account of pendency of a criminal case, though it was due on 09.08.1999 on completion of 12 years of service.. The guidelines which are enumerated in Clause 1 of DPC Minutes, deal with different situations where either punishment has been imposed on an officer seeking grant of such financial up-gradation or cases where officers has been placed under suspension or Departmental Proceeding has been initiated by issuance of a charge sheet or there has been sanction for prosecution in a criminal case instituted against such persons or a criminal case is found pending against him. In such cases, DPC has decided not to make recommendation for grant of 1st and 2nd ACP / MACP. In case of financial up-gradation dealt at Clause 3 of the said Minutes, it is indicated that amongst the preceding five years of ACR of the concerned officer from when the ACP has become due, at least three ACR should not contain any adverse entry; that he should have passed the departmental exam and his services are also confirmed. Then only, the Committee could make recommendation in favour of the said candidate. Other conditions contained in Clause 4 and 5 do not apply to the petitioner's case as he had neither been punished in a Departmental Proceeding, nor in a criminal case. It appears that therefore, on the due date i.e. 09.08.1999, petitioner was neither charge sheeted in two criminal cases instituted by the CBI, nor he was under suspension and no charge memo in Departmental Proceeding were either issued against him. All such events have taken place after 09.08.1999, as noticed in the factual details of the case in the earlier part of the judgment. The petitioner therefore did not suffer from legal disability on the date on which he had become entitled for grant of 1st ACP in terms of the Resolution of 14.08.2002 of the Finance Department, Government of Jharkhand. Therefore, such denial on the part of the DPC is in teeth of the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of K.V. Jankiraman (Supra) para-6 thereof.