NIHAL SINGH Vs. K K GARNKHAR DEAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant was working as L.D.C. and officiating U.D.C. in Land and Development Office, Delhi Administration. He was placed under suspension w.e.f. 2-3-1959 because disciplinary enquiry was contemplated. The Land and Development Office was transferred to the Central Government and put under the Ministry of Works, Housing and Supply in October, 1959. The case of the appellant was reviewed and the order of suspension was revoked w.e.f. 24-2-1960. On 6-4-1973, the Land and Development Officer issued an order whereby the appellant was deemed to have been promoted as Superintendent in the scale of Rs. 250-15-400 w.e.f. 25-2-1959. The position was reviewed by the Ministry and it directed cancellation of the order D/- 6-4-1973 as the seniority of the appellant was still under consideration. Consequently an order was passed on 27-10-1973 cancelling the earlier orders. On 24-8-1976, an order was passed against the appellant as a result of a departmental enquiry holding that he was guilty of gross indiscipline and misconduct and awarding punishment of withholding two increments with cumulative effect. A third order was passed on 5-10-1976 compulsorily retiring the appellant from service. A fourth order was passed on 7-12-1976 restricting his pay for the period of suspension to the amount of subsistence allowance.

(2.) The appellant challenged the said orders before the High Court of Delhi in C.W. 187/77. Learned single Judge allowed the writ petition and quashed all the orders. He issued several directions also regarding the fixation of seniority. The Union of India and the concerned officials preferred an appeal LPA 51/83. The Division Bench by its judgment D/- 12-8-1986 allowed the appeal partly. The Division Bench held that the order D/- 27-10-1973 cancelling the order of 6-4-1973 granting deemed promotion retrospectively to the appellant was valid. The Division Bench also upheld the order withholding two increments with cumulative effect but agreed with the learned single Judge in holding that the period of suspension will be treated as on duty. The quashing of the order of compulsory retirement was also upheld.

(3.) The main reasons given by the Division Bench are that the appellant was not eligible for promotion to the post of Superintendent in 1959 as he was only a L.D.C. and officiating as U.D.C. and that there was no record to show the existence of any vacancy in the post of Superintendent. The Appellate Bench could not also find any material to agree with the single Judge on the question of mala fides on the part of the officer who passed the order dated 27-10-1973.