GOVT OF NCT OF DELHI Vs. JAGMOHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner Government of NCT of Delhi and ors have challenged the order dated 13th August, 2009 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench in O.A No.1101/2008 titled Sh.Jagmohan v. Government of NCT of Delhi and Ors, allowing the original application of the respondent holding that the respondent is entitled for all benefits admissible as if the original promotion order was in order and he be deputed for training as early as possible. The respondent is a highly decorated officer of Delhi Police and on 17th March, 1999 he was conferred Asadharan Karya Puruskar for his extraordinary performance and devotion to duty. He was recommended for out of turn promotion by the SHO Defence Colony Police Station on 5th April, 1996 and thereafter by the Deputy Commissioner (South) District on 5th February, 2001. The streak of outstanding performance and devotion to duty continued in case of the respondent and he was recommended again during 2005 and Asadharan Karya Puruskar and cash awards were again given to him on 16th June, 2005. Under Rule 19(ii) of Delhi Police (Promotion and Confirmation) Rules, respondent was given out of turn promotion in the rank of Head Constable by order dated 31st August, 2006 pursuant to his name shown in the list of the promotees dated 28th December, 1996. The list of the promotees also showed details of constables whose names were kept in a sealed cover, however, there was no caveat or restriction or exception carved out or the promotion was subjected to any condition in the case of respondent.

(2.) According to the respondent on 19th May, 2007 pursuant to a case registered by CBI on 3rd April, 2003 the respondent along with others was placed under suspension. Though pursuant to another order dated 23rd August, 2007 he was to be sent for training in Lower School Course commencing from 20th August, 2007, however, request by the respondent for deputation for training was rejected by the Deputy Commissioner on 29th August, 2007.

(3.) The respondent therefore, challenged the order dated 29th August, 2007 declining to send him for course and the order dated 11th March, 2008 withdrawing his promotion which was granted to him by the order dated 31st August, 2006 before the Administrative Tribunal. The respondent contended that a writ petition was filed by Ms.Sonia before the High Court alleging that her husband had died not in an encounter but was killed and consequently the entire team including the respondent was implicated on 5th March, 2003. The writ petition was disposed of with direction to CBI to investigate into the matter. The contention on behalf of the respondent inter-alia was that the alleged disability on account of the case initiated by the investigating agency was much after the promotion was granted by the order dated 31st August, 2006 and so it could not be annulled or withdrawn. It was categorically contended that even suspension order passed against him was revoked on 6th June, 2007 by the High Court and consequently the promotion order dated 31st August, 2006 could not be revoked by order dated 11th March, 2008. In any case it is contended that the said order has been passed in denial of principles of natural justice as no notice had been given nor any opportunity was given to the respondent to show that the promotion granted to him on 31st August, 2006 could not be withdrawn. Even in the case which was registered, the chargesheet has not been filed and no departmental proceedings have been conducted against the respondent so as to entail any consequences for cancellation of the promotion order. Merely on the basis of the criminal case filed against the respondent later on, the promotion granted earlier could not be revoked.