DELHI JAL BOARD Vs. MAHINDER SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This special leave petition is preferred against the order of the Division Bench of the Delhi High Court dated 27-3-2000 in L.P.A. No. 129/2000 dismissing the LPA filed by the Delhi Jal Board on the ground of delay and Advocate not being present. The respondent-writ petitioner contended before the learned single Judge that the sealed cover prepared by the Departmental Promotion Committee should be opened and he be given the benefit of promotion as per the recommendation of the DPC notwithstanding the pendency of a latter disciplinary case.

(2.) The learned single Judge of the High Court accepted the writ petitioner's contention following two judgments of this Court reported in (1999) 5 SCC 762 Bank of India v. Degala Suryanarayana and in (1998) 4 SCC 154 State of A.P. v. N. Radhakishan and allowed the writ petition. It was held that once the first disciplinary inquiry resulted in favour of the writ petitioner, the benefit of the findings of DPC in the sealed cover should be given to the writ petitioner notwithstanding the pendency of a second inquiry. In the two judgments of this Court which were followed by the learned single Judge, it was held that if a person's case had been considered for promotion by the Departmental Promotion Committee and because of pendency of certain charges, the findings of the DPC were kept in a sealed cover, he was entitled to the benefit of the findings of the selection, if they were in his favour if the disciplinary inquiry ended in his favour, notwithstanding the fact that by that date, some other inquiry might have been pending against him.

(3.) Learned Additional Solicitor General Sri K. N. Rawal has contended that the abovesaid two judgments of this Court require reconsideration.