Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 5 of 5 (0.21 seconds)
Adesh Kumar vs The Union Of India & Ors on 7 May, 2015 cites

Union Of India Etc. Etc vs K.V. Jankiraman Etc. Etc on 27 August, 1991

6. It is a settled legal position that an employee has no vested right of promotion. He has only a right of consideration. It is not the case of the petitioner that he was not considered for promotion to the post of Chief Engineer in the DPC which was held on 31st August, 2012. The grievance raised by the petitioner is that as on that date the criminal court had not yet framed charges against him and before the charges are framed by the W.P .(C) 9068/2014 Page 3 of 9 criminal court, the DPC could not have resorted to the sealed cover procedure. The judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Union of India & Ors. V. K.V. Jankiraman & Ors., (1991) 4 SCC 109 has given an answer to such kind of situations and the view taken was that it is only when a charge memo in a disciplinary proceedings or a chargesheet in a criminal prosecution is issued to the employee then it can be said that the departmental proceedings/criminal prosecution is initiated against the employee. It further held that pendency of preliminary investigation prior to that stage will not sufficient to enable the authorities to adopt the sealed cover procedure. The Apex Court thus clearly held that sealed cover procedure can be resorted to after the charge memo/chargesheet is issued. The relevant paras of the said judgment are reproduced as under:-
Supreme Court of India Cites 3 - Cited by 1332 - P B Sawant - Full Document

Union Of India vs Kewai, Kumar on 12 April, 1993

7. We may also refer to another decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Union of India v. Kewal Kumar, (1993) 3 SCC 204 where also the DPC had followed the sealed cover procedure in the case of an employee in view of the fact that the decision to initiate disciplinary proceedings against him for imposition of major penalty had been taken by the competent authority based on an FIR registered against him by the CBI. The issue raised before the Court was that the decision to initiate disciplinary proceedings were taken on 20.11.1989 but chargesheet against the employee was issued much later i.e. on 01.08.1990 and as on the date of the meeting of DPC no chargesheet was issued against the employee and thus the sealed cover procedure could not have been resorted to. Answering this question, the Supreme Court held that in a case like that where the First Information Report was registered by the CBI and on that basis the decision had been taken by the competent authority to initiate disciplinary proceedings for imposition of major penalty on the respondent prior to the meeting of the DPC, the applicability of the sealed cover procedure cannot be doubted. W.P .(C) 9068/2014 Page 6 of 9 The Court further held that the formulation of the charges required for implementing the decision of the competent authority to initiate the disciplinary proceedings, is satisfied in such a case by the recording of the First Information Report by the CBI which records the allegations against the respondent and provides the basis for disciplinary proceedings and even if the chargesheet was issued to the respondent subsequent to the meeting of the DPC, this fact alone can not benefit the respondent. Relevant paras of the said judgment are referred to as under:-
Supreme Court of India Cites 1 - Cited by 22 - J S Verma - Full Document

Delhi Development Authority vs H.C. Khurana on 7 April, 1993

"2. The question in the present case, is: Whether the decision in Jankiraman was correctly applied in the present situation? In Jankiraman itself, it has been pointed out that the sealed cover procedure is to be followed where a government servant is recommended for promotion by the D.P.C., but before he is actually promoted if „he is either placed under suspension or disciplinary proceedings are taken against him or a decision has been taken to initiate proceedings or criminal prosecution is launched or sanction for such prosecution has been issued or decision to accord such sanction is taken'. Thus, the sealed cover procedure is attracted even when a decision has been taken to initiate disciplinary proceedings, or „decision to accord sanction for prosecution is taken‟ or „criminal prosecution is launched or......... decision to accord sanction for prosecution is taken‟. The object of following the sealed cover procedure has been indicated recently in the decision in Civil Appeal No. 1240 of 1993 - Delhi Development Authority v. H.C. Khurana pronounced on April 7, 1993, and need not be reiterated.
Supreme Court of India Cites 1 - Cited by 131 - J S Verma - Full Document

Union Of India vs Kewal Krishan Mittal on 25 November, 1983

8. The judgment in the case of Union of India v. Kewal Kumar is an exact answer to the grievance raised by the petitioner as in the facts of the present case also when an FIR was registered against the petitioner by the CBI under Sections 7, 13(1) (d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and Section 120-B of Indian Penal Code, the petitioner was arrested in the said criminal case. The framing of the charges is not pre- requisite for initiating disciplinary proceedings against such an employee as W.P .(C) 9068/2014 Page 8 of 9 the allegations levelled in the FIR which even had lead to the arrest of an employee are sufficient enough for initiation of disciplinary proceedings and also for adopting the sealed cover procedure in a case where promotion of such an officer is due. The two office memorandums on which reliance has been placed by the petitioner also nowhere contemplates any such situation that it is only where charges are framed the sealed cover procedure can be adopted, as these office memorandums also refer to the pendency of disciplinary case/criminal prosecution against the government servant and in the present case the petitioner was facing criminal prosecution as on the date of meeting of DPC.
Delhi High Court Cites 13 - Cited by 22 - Full Document
1