S.C. SONI Vs. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Short question involved in present petition is whether petitioner, whose name was kept in a sealed cover at the time of considering candidature of Forest Range Officers for promotion in Departmental Promotion Committee on account of issuance of show-cause notice to him, and subsequently proceedings against petitioner were dropped, is entitled for all consequential benefits from the date of order of promotion issued in favour of other employees issued by the Departmental Promotion Committee in its meeting dtd. 1/10/2004.

(2.) In the year 2002 petitioner was working on the post of Forest Range Officer. On 3/4/2002 he was served with a show-cause notice to which he filed reply on 15/11/2002. Department constituted a Departmental Promotion Committee for considering names of eligible Forest Range Officers for their promotion on the post of Assistant Conservator of Forest. Petitioner was also under zone of consideration but looking to note that show-cause notice with respect to irregularities and negligence in discharge of duties is issued to him, petitioner's name was kept in a sealed cover. Based on recommendation of Departmental Promotion Committee dtd. 1/10/2004, order of promotion was issued in favour of Forest Range Officers who were considered along with petitioner on 4/11/2004. Department considering reply to show cause notice submitted by petitioner to be satisfactory, closed proceeding initiated against petitioner vide order dtd. 20/2/2007. DPC opened sealed envelope and found petitioner fit for promotion. Petitioner was thereafter promoted to the post of Assistant Conservator of Forest on 24/7/2007 by the Department of its own. Finding that in promotion order it is nowhere mentioned that petitioner is promoted from back date i.e. 4/11/2004. on which date promotion order was issued in favour of other Forest Range Officers whose names were considered for promotion in DPC dtd. 1/10/2004, petitioner submitted representation before the authority concerned which remained undecided. This made the petitioner to approach this Court by filing this writ petition seeing for following reliefs:-

(3.) Learned counsel for petitioner would submit that on the date of consideration of name of petitioner in DPC dtd. 1/10/2004, only a show-cause notice was issued to him calling explanation on allegations mentioned in show-cause notice to which petitioner replied explaining in detail. It is not the case that petitioner was served with charge sheet for initiating departmental proceedings. Hence, even on the date of meeting of DPC for considering name of Forest Range Officers for promotion, there was no reason with respondent authorities to keep name of petitioner in a sealed cover. In alternate, he submits that respondent department upon considering reply submitted by petitioner to show cause notice recorded a finding that reply submitted by petitioner is satisfactory and filed proceedings (closed proceedings against petitioner) and further specified in the order that liability of petitioner could not be proved. He submits that order dtd. 20/2/2007 clearly states that petitioner is exonerated from all charges as levelled against him in show-cause notice, therefore, after passing of the order dtd. 20/2/2007 the department followed rule of law, opened sealed cover containing recommendation of DPC and issued order of promotion dtd. 24/7/2007 in favour of petitioner promoting him to the post of Assistant Conservator of Forest from the post of Forest Range Officer. However, respondent department erred in not granting promotion to petitioner from back date i.e. 4/11/2004 on which date order of promotion was issued in favour of other employees who were considered in DPC along with petitioner. He submits that since any of the employees against whom departmental enquiry or any criminal proceeding is pending on the date of holding of DPC, name of such employee is to be kept in sealed envelope but as soon as such employee is honorably exonerated from all charges, said employee has to be promoted from initial date of promotion based on recommendation of DPC. In instant case, petitioner has been promoted from the date of order of issuance of promotion order dtd. 24/7/2007 though petitioner was promoted after opening of sealed cover kept by DPC on 1/10/2004. He submits that a direction be issued to the respondent authorities directing them to grant promotion to petitioner w.e.f. 4/11/2004 on which date other Forest Range Officers were promoted. As petitioner is not responsible for any delay in passing of order dtd. 20/2/2007, he is entitled for all consequential benefits including arrears of salary from 4/11/2004. Records / documents placed along with writ petition would show that show-cause notice was served upon petitioner on 3/4/2002 to which he replied on 15/11/2002 i.e. about two years prior to constitution of DPC. Respondent authorities sat over reply and did not decide the same. Show-cause notice based on reply submitted was decided in favour of petitioner exonerating him from all charges only on 20/2/2007 i.e. after more than four years of submission of reply to show cause notice. As there is no act or omission on the part of petitioner in any manner in delaying result of show cause notice, petitioner is entitled for arrears of salary for the period from 4/11/2004 to 24/7/2007. He placed reliance on decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Union of India & ors vs. K.V. Jankiraman & ors reported in (1991) 4 SCC 109 and Gurpal Singh Vs. High Court of Judicature of Rajasthan reported in (2012) 13 SCC 94.