Union Of India Etc. Etc vs K.V. Jankiraman Etc. Etc on 27 August, 1991
We have carefully gone through the DOP&T OM dated 14.9.1992 relied upon by the respondents in the impugned order in withdrawing the order of promotion of the applicants. The same is not even remotely applicable to the facts of the case in hand. The subject of the OM aforesaid is Promotion of Government servants against whom disciplinary/ court proceedings are pending or whose conduct is under investigation Procedure and guidelines to be followed. It appears to have come into effect after the judgment of the Honble Supreme Court in Union of India v K. V. Jankiraman [AIR 1991 SC 1210]. It gives in detail the procedure to be followed as regards promotion of such employees who may be under suspension or against whom charge-sheet may have been issued in disciplinary proceedings and the same may be pending, and those against whom prosecution for criminal charge may be pending. In brief, the sealed cover procedure is to be adopted in cases of such employees. There is not a word mentioned in the said instructions as to what would be the position if despite pendency of some disciplinary proceedings an employee is promoted, even though on ad hoc basis. It may not be appropriate to reproduce the contents of the OM dated 14.9.1992, as nothing mentioned therein is relevant as regards the fact situation obtainable in the present case. We may, however, mention that we specifically asked the learned counsel to point out from the entire OM where there may be even a word mentioned as regards reversion of an employee who may have been promoted on ad hoc basis, and against whom charge may have been framed, but the learned counsel is not able to point to anything that may be relevant in that regard in the OM foresaid. Before we may part with the instructions dated 14.9.1992, we may reiterate that in the present case, there was no charge-sheet pending against the applicants either at the time when they were initially promoted as Executive Engineers or when they were promoted as Superintending Engineers. It is no doubt true that after DPC was held and they were to be considered for regular promotion, the chargesheets were pending against them and, therefore, it was notified that their promotion would be on officiating basis. Instructions dated 14.9.1992, we have already held above, do not deal with reversions. We are further of the view that the instructions contained in the said OM may not be applicable even as regards promotion of the applicants, as surely, these instructions do not deal with a situation where the DPC may have been held later than the promotion, and by which time, an employee may have been charge-sheeted.