ABHAY NATH THAKUR Vs. STATE OF C.G.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) On 27-11-2012, the Departmental Promotion Committee (for short "DPC") for promotion on two posts of Chief Engineer (for short "CE") from that of Superintending Engineer (for short "SE") was convened by the respondent and it recommended name of the petitioner and one H.S. Dhingra for promotion to the post of CE, vide Annexure P-2. In the said list, the petitioner was placed at serial No. 1. As despite the recommendations of DPC no formal order was issued by the respondent in relation to the petitioner promoting him to the post of CE for about three months, he filed W.P. (S) No. 665/2013 before this Court, which came to be disposed of on 19-3-2013 directing the respondent to take a decision for implementation of the recommendation of the DPC. When nothing was done by the respondent despite directions of this Court, the petitioner gave a legal notice to the respondent for initiating contempt proceedings and it is only after receiving the said notice order dated 23-5-2013 (Annexure P-10) has been served on the petitioner informing him that as after the recommendations of DPC and before issuing formal promotion order, a departmental enquiry was instituted against the petitioner, his case has been kept in a sealed cover and further action thereon would be taken in due course of time. It is this action of the respondent, which is under challenge in this petition. Counsel for the petitioner submits that on the date of DPC, no departmental enquiry was in contemplation nor any charge sheet was served on the petitioner and, therefore, the moment his case was recommended by the DPC the respondent was under obligation to issue promotion order in favour of the petitioner and any subsequent act cannot come in the way of issuing the promotion order. He further submits that once the petitioner was found fit by the DPC for promotion, the respondent should have immediately issued the promotion order. According to the Counsel for the petitioner, H.S. Dhingra who was at S. No. 2 in the recommendation of the DPC has already been promoted to the post of CE whereas the petitioner has wrongly been denied promotion and, therefore, he is entitled to be promoted as CE from the date on which H.S. Dhingra was promoted on the said post.

(2.) On the other hand, opposing the submissions made on behalf of the petitioner, it has been argued on behalf of the respondent that though the petitioner was found fit for promotion by the DPC held on 27-11-2012, before issuance of formal promotion order implementing the recommendations of the DPC, on 29-5-2013 the petitioner was subjected to charge-sheet and therefore, his promotion has rightly been withheld and sealed cover procedure has been adopted.

(3.) Heard Counsel for the parties and perused the documents on record.